Category: Recommended

By Dr. Mercola

Bioidentical hormone therapy has become widely adopted as a useful method of normalizing hormone levels. While it is far safer than synthetic or animal based hormones like Premarin, there are clearly some dangers associated with its use and the purpose of this article is to highlight some of the major ones.
This article is in no way meant to be a comprehensive review of the topic, but merely to point out some of the major concerns and approaches as I see them from having practiced medicine for nearly three decades.
If you have any interest. I would strongly recommend purchasing Dr. Wright’s new book Stay Young and Sexy. It is under $10 and simply the best book I have reviewed on the topic. If the book were $100 it would be worth the price. This book is a classic and should be in everyone’s natural medicine library. The publisher has also created a web site with a free hormone self assessment and sample chapters at www.stayyoungandsexy.com.

Natural Progesterone

I will focus much of this article on natural progesterone cream as it is one of the most popular and useful ones for women.Typically, women find rapid improvement in two of the most common premenopausal challenges which are PMS and painful cramps.  It can be also extraordinarily useful to prevent miscarriages but dosing would be continuous after conception.
Dr. John Lee was my original mentor in this area but he passed away a number of years ago and did not fully appreciate the challenges that are associated with using the creams on your skin.
Dr. Jonathon Wright, along with Dr. Lee, are considered the pioneers in introducing bioidentical hormone therapy in the United States. Dr. Wright is still alive and I believe has successfully resolved the challenge associated with using the creams. Before I discuss that though, let’s first do a brief review of why progesterone is important.
Natural progesterone is the identical hormone that is produced by a woman’s ovary. It is made from naturally occurring plant steroids found in the wild yam. It is NOT the synthetic version that is commonly purchased as tablets with a prescription such as Provera.
Synthetic progesterones, like Provera or medroxyprogesterone, can produce severe side effects including increased risk of cancer, abnormal menstrual flow, fluid retention, nausea, depression and can even increase risk of heart disease and stroke.
Side effects are extremely rare with natural progesterone. The only one of concern is that it can potentially alter the timing of your menstrual cycle.

Reasons Why Natural Progesterone Made by Your Body Is Good

Progesterone is a steroid hormone made by a woman’s ovaries when she ovulates and in smaller amounts by the adrenal gland. A menstruating woman will typically produce about 20 to 30 mg of progesterone a day during the luteal or last phase of her menstrual cycle.
While menopause doesn’t typically occur until age 50 or later, many women can start going out of balance in their 30s or even earlier. This decline in progesterone is not trivial for as women age into their fourth, fifth, and sixth decade, their progesterone levels continue to fall.  By the time they reach perimenopause as much as 75% or more of their youthful progesterone secretion may already be missing.
Natural progesterone is very useful to balance excess estrogen which can be a major risk for breast cancer. Natural progesterone is also different from estrogen in that your body can use it as a precursor or starting material to make other hormones such as adrenal hormones. It can even convert it into estrogen or testosterone if your body needs it.
Natural progesterone is made from a substance called diosgenin which is commonly extracted from wild yams or soybeans.  Even though it may be extracted from soy it is a highly purified hormone and there are absolutely no remnants of soy substances that would lead to any problem.

Estrogen Dominance

Many if not most women in our culture are estrogen dominant, so using the progesterone goes a long way towards balancing hormones which usually:

Decreases a woman’s risk for breast cancer,
Improves her PMS and breast tenderness and

The table below lists the properties of estrogen relative to progesterone. Some of the reasons that estrogen is frequently in excess in many women are:

Overproduction of estrogen. Ovarian cysts or tumors can lead to excess estrogen production. Stress also increases production, but probably the most common cause is obesity. All body fat has an enzyme which converts adrenal steroids to estrogen, so the more fat you have, the more estrogen is present.
Inability to breakdown estrogen. Excess estrogen is generally removed by the liver. Diseases of the liver like cirrhosis or decreased enzyme activity can lead to increased estrogen levels. Vitamin B6 and magnesium are necessary for the liver to neutralize estrogen. Increased sugar intake will also excrete magnesium and interfere with its ability to breakdown estrogen.
Exposure to pesticides in foods. Most of us eat foods that have pesticides on them. These and many other unnatural chemicals share a common structure with estrogen and serve as “false” estrogens which further stimulates the body’s estrogen receptors.
Estrogen supplementation. Clearly any additional estrogen given by prescription will increase the level unless it is properly balanced with natural progesterone.
Decreased production of progesterone. Progesterone is necessary to counterbalance estrogen. If women do not ovulate during their cycle they will not produce any progesterone that cycle. This happens commonly and worsens the already disturbed progesterone/estrogen balance. Decreased progesterone levels are one of the most common reasons for miscarriages.

To minimize your risk of cancer it is very important to understand that you should never take any supplemental estrogen without taking natural progesterone. Note that I use the term “natural’ progesterone, or the real hormone. Taking synthetic versions like Provera will actually increase your risk of cancers and heart disease.

Estrogen Effects
Progesterone Effects

Stimulates breasts cysts
Protects against breast cysts

Increases body fat storage
Helps use fat for energy and keep it off hips

Salt and fluid retention
Natural diuretic (water pill)

Depression and headaches
Natural anti-depressant

Interferes with thyroid hormone
Facilitates thyroid hormone action

Increases blood clotting and risk of stroke
Normalizes blood clotting

Decreases libido (sex drive)
Increases libido

Impairs blood sugar control
Normalizes blood sugar levels

Loss of zinc and retention of copper
Normalizes zinc and copper levels

Reduced oxygen level in all cells
Restores proper cell oxygen levels

Increased risk of endometrial cancer
Helps prevent endometrial cancer

Increased risk of breast cancer
Helps prevent breast cancer

Helps decrease bone loss slightly
Increases bone building

Why You Should AVOID All Oral Hormone Preparations

There are many ways to “naturally” address bioidentical hormone replacement but one of the most common mistakes is to use oral hormones.
If nature had intended to locate your ovaries in your stomach or somewhere else in your GI tract it might make sense for women to swallow progesterone. If your ovaries were in your GI tract, your body would certainly have been equipped with a way to process them safely and efficiently so that everything worked in perfect synchrony.
Of course your ovaries are not in your GI tract but in your pelvis outside your GI tract and connected to your uterus and vagina through your fallopian tubes. Your ovaries have direct access to your blood stream through a pelvic plexus of veins, which delivers their hormone secretions to your heart which in turn pumps them, unchanged to hormone sensitive cells throughout your entire body.
If you swallow steroid hormones you will seriously distort their natural metabolism  When you swallow them they will encounter potent stomach acids. The hormones that survive this assault then go to your liver where they will be further broken down. Your liver screens all molecules that enter your blood stream, passing some onward, modifying or detoxifying others, and rejecting a few. 
This routing of orally swallowed hormones is in sharp contrast to the way nature intended them to be distributed to your tissues.  If you swallow hormones only 10-15% will eventually reach the target tissues and you will need to take an oral dose that is 500% higher than you need. Over 30 different metabolites are created in your liver when you swallow the progesterone and any of these can then have unwanted side effects.
So if you or anyone you know currently use oral hormones like progesterone or DHEA or any hormone, I encourage you to strongly consider phasing them out. 
Like most good things in life if you use too much of the hormone cream, complications can develop and disrupt your hormone balance.

The Key to Safely and Effectively Using Progesterone Cream

If you want to copy nature and reproduce a hormonal environment that most closely resembles a normal premenopausal woman the first logical step would be to get the hormones directly into your blood stream, just the way your ovary does.
Hormones carefully measured and formulated in an appropriate cream or gel need only be rubbed once or twice a day into your mucous (epithelial) membranes. Since there are no destructive detours through your GI tract when administered this way, your tissues are exposed to the appropriate concentrations of the hormone without the side effects of 30 different liver metabolites.
I first started using these creams in the early 1990s be became gradually disenchanted with them after I noticed that they typically worked wonderfully initially but then invariably stopped working. This is now known as “dermal fatigue”. 
What happens, not only for progesterone cream, but for ANY hormone preparation you use by applying as a cream to your skin is that within a few weeks to a few months you will saturate the fat tissue with the hormones and they will actually stop working or can even make your symptoms worse.
The problem relates to the fact that progesterone is highly fat soluble and once applied to your skin will store itself in your fat tissue. When one initially uses the cream, there aren’t any problems as the fat stores are very low. But as time goes on, the cream accumulates and contributes to disruptions in your adrenal hormones such as DHEA, cortisol, and testosterone. I have learned that although progesterone cream is an enormously useful tool, it needs to be used very cautiously.
I found that many of the women who were on the cream have terribly elevated levels of this hormone. Progesterone is normally a cyclical hormone and the body really needs to see a change in the concentration to affect a proper physiological response. If the level is constantly above the concentration that it recognizes as “off” or low, this is not possible.
Fortunately, this is repairable. But it may involve going off the cream for as long as two years to wash the progesterone out of your system.

Best Way to Use Progesterone Cream

The key mistake that many well intentioned knowledgeable doctors, including myself made is to advise to use the cream on your skin. While this certainly provides better results than swallowing the hormones, it can still be improved.
There is a relatively minor tweak you can make with the creams which avoids nearly all of the side effects of applying the cream on your skin.
If you apply the cream to your mucous epithelial membranes that line your uterus and vagina you obtain a virtually ideal administration system. Not only is absorption through these membranes more complete than through your skin, but hormones absorbed through your vaginal membranes enter the very same pelvic plexus of veins that your ovaries normally empty into.
From here the hormones are carried to your heart and lungs and distributed to your tissues just as if your ovary had actually produced them.
Men also require hormones. Obviously men don’t have a vagina to use but we do have a rectum that has a similar mucosal epithelial surface and can be used to administer the hormones in a near ideal fashion without any of the complications previously described.

Timing and Dose of Progesterone Cream

For most premenopausal women the usual dose is 15-24 mg/day for 14 days before expected menses, stopping the day or so before menses.  So you would use the cream for twelve days and then stop. Typically this would mean you would start on day 12 of your cycle and stop on day 26.
The abrupt lowering of your progesterone level is the primary stimulus for your period to start.  Hopefully when it starts any PMS and painful periods will be dramatically reduced.
When a women is in menopause she may only need 15 mg but taken for the first 25 days of the month, then take 5 or 6 days off and restart on the first of the month.
For most women a single daily application will work. However, because the half-life is relatively short, some women find that they get a more satisfactory response by splitting the daily dose in two, half in the morning and half in the evening. If you are only taking the hormones in the morning and begin to feel symptoms later in the day, splitting the dose in two should solve this problem.

Testing of Your Natural Hormones

This is somewhat of a controversial area but basically involves three different types.

Blood
Saliva
Urine

I have never been a fan of blood testing as many of the hormones are secreted in a pulsatile fashion and it is difficult to get an accurate idea of the levels in this way.
Saliva testing is easier than urine but is not as accurate.
My current belief is that a 24 hour urine test is the preferred method and the one I use for myself and family. This is the one that Dr. Wright advocates in his own clinic. Dr. Wright has trained many hundreds of physicians in this system and if you are seeking further guidance in this area it would be wise to seek one of them to help you in this area.

By Dr. Mercola

Reaching puberty is a rite of passage that we’ve all been through, but children nowadays are reaching it earlier than ever before — a trend that has both health experts and parents alarmed.
Precocious puberty, which is the appearance of secondary sex characteristics like pubic hair or breast growth before age 8, or the onset of menarche before age 9, impacts at least 1 in 5,000 U.S. children, and the rate is on the rise.1
Even in the last three decades, children (particularly girls) are maturing at younger and younger ages (precocious puberty is 10 times more common in girls than in boys).

Puberty, Once the Norm at Age 15, Now Occurring in 7-, 8- and 9-Year-Olds

In the 19th century the onset of menstruation occurred around the age of 15. Now the average age of the first period, or menarche, is around 12. The time during and before puberty is one of rapid development and change, which is why even months matter when it comes to first menstruation. Before menstruation, girls will show beginning signs of development, such as breast “budding” and growth of pubic hair.
These signs are now becoming unsettlingly common among 7-, 8- and 9-year-old girls, to the extent that many health care providers, rather than labeling these children with a diagnosis that something is wrong, have simply changed the definition of what’s normal… but is it really “normal” for girls to mature at such a young age?
There are more questions than answers in the case of precocious puberty, but what is certain is that girls are developing earlier than they have even 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
One study in the journal Pediatrics revealed that by age 7, 10 percent of white girls, 23 percent of black girls, 15 percent of Hispanic girls and 2 percent of Asian girls had started developing breasts, with researchers noting:2

“The proportion of girls who had breast development at ages 7 and 8 years, particularly among white girls, is greater than that reported from studies of girls who were born 10 to 30 years earlier.”

Early puberty can set the stage for emotional and behavioral problems, and is linked to lower self-esteem, depression, eating disorders, alcohol use, earlier loss of virginity, more sexual partners and increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. There is also evidence that suggests these girls are at increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancer, later in life.

Environmental Chemicals a Likely Factor

Scientists have brought forth a number of potential explanations for the rising rates of early puberty, but one that deserves special attention is environmental chemicals, and particularly estrogen-mimicking, “gender-bending” chemicals that easily leach out of the products that contain them, contaminating everything they touch, including food and beverages.
As the featured New York Times article reported:

” …animal studies show that the exposure to some environmental chemicals can cause bodies to mature early. Of particular concern are endocrine-disrupters, like “xeno-estrogens” or estrogen mimics. These compounds behave like steroid hormones and can alter puberty timing.

For obvious ethical reasons, scientists cannot perform controlled studies proving the direct impact of these chemicals on children, so researchers instead look for so-called “natural experiments,” one of which occurred in 1973 in Michigan, when cattle were accidentally fed grain contaminated with an estrogen-mimicking chemical, the flame retardant PBB.
The daughters born to the pregnant women who ate the PBB-laced meat and drank the PBB-laced milk started menstruating significantly earlier than their peers.”

This is an extreme case, but the truth is we are all part of a “secret experiment” of sorts, because hormone-disrupting chemicals are all around us. Bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial petrochemical that acts as a synthetic estrogen, is found in our plastics and our tin can linings, in dental sealants and on cash-register receipts. Laboratory tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected BPA in the umbilical cord blood of 90 percent of newborn infants tested — along with more than 230 other chemicals. As written in the New York Times:

“One concern, among parents and researchers, is the effect of simultaneous exposures to many estrogen-mimics, including the compound BPA, which is ubiquitous.”

No one knows what happens when a developing fetus or young child is exposed to hundreds of chemicals, many of which mimic your body’s natural hormones and can trigger major changes in your body even as an adult, let along during the most rapid and vulnerable periods of development (in utero and as a young child).
BPA is, unfortunately, but one example. Others include phthalates, a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re also one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters, found in everything from processed food packaging and shower curtains to detergents, toys and beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances.
Other environmental chemicals like PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of the pesticide DDT) may also be associated with early sexual development in girls. Both DDE and PCBs are known to mimic, or interfere with, sex hormones.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), found in non-stick cookware, also falls into this dangerous category, as does fluoride, which is added to the majority of public water supplies in the United States. Research showed that animals treated with fluoride had lower levels of circulating melatonin, as reflected by reduced levels of melatonin metabolites in the animals’ urine. This reduced level of circulating melatonin was accompanied — as might be expected — by an earlier onset of puberty in the fluoride-treated female animals.

These Chemicals Also Increase Your Risk of Cancer and Heart Disease

If a chemical is capable of influencing the rate of your reproductive development, it stands to reason that it would be capable of influencing other hormone-sensitive growth processes as well, and this is indeed the case.
For instance, new research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled.3 Parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in not only puberty but also the development of breast cancer. They are widely used in household products such as:

? Deodorants and antiperspirants
? Shampoos and conditioners? Shaving gel
? Toothpaste

? Lotions and sunscreens? Make-up / cosmetics? Pharmaceutical drugs? Food additives

Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing estrogen-mimicking compounds: metals. Yes, a broad range of metals have been shown to act as “metalloestrogens” with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human body, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer and also possibly early puberty. The following metals, which are added to thousands of consumer products, including vaccines, have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens:4

? Aluminum? Antimony? Arsenite? Barium? Cadmium? Chromium? Cobalt

? Copper? Lead? Mercury? Nickel? Selenite? Tin? Vanadate

Data from a long-running British health survey, meanwhile, has shown that if you have high levels of the chemical BPA in your urine, you may be at an increased risk of heart disease. Some of the greatest concern surrounds early-life, in utero exposure to BPA, which can lead to chromosomal errors in your developing fetus, causing spontaneous miscarriages and genetic damage. But evidence is also very strong showing these chemicals are influencing adults and children, too, and leading to decreased sperm quality, early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles and ovarian dysfunction, obesity, cancer and heart disease, among numerous other health problems.

Avoiding Hormone-Disrupting Substances is Crucial for Children and Adults Alike

While young girls may show obvious signs of exposure to hormone-disrupting substances via early puberty, other signals are more insidious and may not show up until a disease is already present. Here are 11 measures you can implement right away to help protect yourself and your children from common toxic substances that could cause precocious puberty and other long-term health problems:

As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic meats to reduce your exposure to added hormones, pesticides and fertilizers. Also avoid milk and other dairy products that contain the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST)
Eat mostly raw, fresh foods. Processed, prepackaged foods (of all kinds) are a major source of soy and chemicals such as BPA and phthalates.
Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap and canned foods (which are often lined with BPA-containing liners).
Use glass baby bottles and BPA-free sippy cups for your little ones.
Make sure your baby’s toys are BPA-free, such as pacifiers, teething rings and anything your child may be prone to suck on.
Only use natural cleaning products in your home to avoid phthalates.
Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great safety guide to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates, parabens and other potentially dangerous chemicals.
Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances, many of which can also disrupt your hormone balance.
Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
Avoid non-fermented soy, especially if you’re pregnant and in infant formula.

Theo Colburn’s book Our Stolen Future is a great source for further investigation as it identifies the numerous ways in which environmental pollutants are disrupting human reproductive patterns. I believe it is one of the best resources on this topic and highly recommend it.

Vitamin D Also Linked to Early Puberty

It has been suggested that girls who live closer to the equator start puberty at a later age than girls who live in Northern regions. Since this indicates a potential connection with sun exposure, researchers decided to investigate whether vitamin D was, in fact, related. Upon measuring vitamin D levels in 242 girls aged 5-12, researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health found that those who were deficient were twice as likely to start menstruation during the study period as those with higher levels.5
Specifically, among the vitamin-D-deficient girls, 57 percent started their period during the study, compared to 23 percent with adequate vitamin D. However, researchers defined adequate vitamin D as ? 30 ng/mL, which is actually still a deficiency state! For optimal health, vitamin D levels should be a minimum of 50 ng/mL, which means the number of vitamin-D-deficient girls with early puberty was probably much higher than the study reported.
The earlier you enter puberty, the longer you’re exposed to elevated levels of the female hormone estrogen, which is a risk factor for certain cancers such as breast cancer. This has been the primary “link” between early puberty and cancer that has been explored, but it’s important to understand that vitamin D deficiency is also a major risk factor for cancer, heart disease and many other diseases. So it could be that some of the increased risks that come from early puberty are linked to low vitamin D levels.

What You Should Know About Obesity, Stress and Exercise

Obesity (which exposes girls to more estrogen because estrogen is both stored and produced in fat tissue) is another likely factor in early puberty. The New York Times reported:

“As Robert Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital, explains, fatter girls have higher levels of the hormone leptin, which can lead to early puberty, which leads to higher estrogen levels, which leads to greater insulin resistance, causing girls to have yet more fat tissue, more leptin and more estrogen, the cycle feeding on itself, until their bodies physically mature.”

As for stress, this, too, has been linked to early puberty, with girls whose parents divorced when they were between 3- and 8-years-old significantly more likely to experience precocious puberty. “Evolutionary psychology offers a theory,” the New York Times reports. “A stressful childhood inclines a body toward early reproduction; if life is hard, best to mature young. But such theories are tough to prove.” Interestingly, in addition to avoiding environmental chemicals, obesity and stress, and optimizing your vitamin D, regular exercise appears to be one of the best known ways to help prevent early puberty.

By Dr. Mercola

New research examining parabens found in cancerous human breast tissue points the finger at antiperspirants and other cosmetics for increasing your risk of breast canceri.
The research, which is also reviewed in an editorial published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, looked at where breast tumors were appearing, and determined that higher concentrations of parabens were found in the upper quadrants of the breast and axillary area, where antiperspirants are usually appliedii.
Parabens are chemicals that serve as preservatives in antiperspirants and many cosmetics, as well as sun lotions. Previous studies have shown that all parabens have estrogenic activity in human breast cancer cells.
Another component of antiperspirants, aluminum chloride, has been found to act similarly to the way oncogenes work to provide molecular transformations in cancer cells. According to the authors of the editorial review, the research shows “signals of concern that such compounds are not as safe as previously generally considered, and further research is warranted.” Furthermore:

“The data from this latest study, the most extensive examination of parabens in human breast so far published, confirms previous work and raises a number of questions on the entire parabens, personal care product and human health debate, particularly relating to the source and toxicological significance of the paraben esters.”

Ninety-nine Percent of Breast Cancer Tissue Samples Contain Parabens

The featured study by Barr et.al. discovered one or more paraben esters in 99 percent of the 160 tissue samples collected from 40 mastectomiesiii. In 60 percent of the samples, all five paraben esters were present. There were no correlations between paraben concentrations and age, length of breast feeding, tumor location, or tumor estrogen receptor content. The median values in nanograms per tissue for the five chemicals were:

n-propylparaben 16.8
methylparaben 16.6
n-butylparaben 5.8
ethylparaben 3.4
isobutylparaben 2.1

While antiperspirants are a common source of parabens, the authors note that the source of the parabens cannot be established, and that 7 of the 40 patients reportedly never used deodorants or antiperspirants in their lifetime. What this tells us is that parabens, regardless of the source, can bioaccumulate in breast tissue.
And the sources are many. Parabens can be found in a wide variety of personal care products, cosmetics, as well as drugs. That said, it appears the dermal route is the most significant form of exposure. In the featured editorial, Philip Harvey and David Everett explain why:

“… [T]he dermal route of exposure is considered more plausible when intact esters are detected, and other authors reporting human exposures and body fluid concentrations of paraben esters consider cosmetics of some form or another as the likely sources… This is because the metabolic esterase activity of the gut and liver (relevant to oral exposure) is considered to greatly exceed that of the skin, and oral exposures would result in rapid liver metabolism of the esters to produce the common metabolite p-hydroxybenzoic acid… Paraben esters typically used in cosmetics pass through human skin in vitro/ex vivo, and Ishiwatrai et.al. (2007) has shown persistence of unmetabolized methylparaben in the skin”

Safety of Parabens has NEVER Been Established…

As incredible as it sounds, despite the fact that parabens are used in such a wide variety of products, the toxicology of these chemicals has barely been investigated. There is a complete lack of modern toxicology studies on these ingredients, and according to the featured review, not a single study on the chemicals’ carcinogenity follows acceptable regulatory standard carcinogenity study protocols.
The authors point out that one rat study from 1956 is still used as “the pivotal evaluation upon which human safety is judged!”

“This may be acceptable for certain chemicals for which there is limited human exposure but not for chemicals such as parabens for which such a large population is exposed, and which show significant tissue concentrations,” they write.

Furthermore, virtually all toxicology studies are based on the oral route of exposure, which means that risk assessment, according to Harvey and Everett, is “largely based on assumption, opinion and the technical regulatory instrument of GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe).”

The Estrogenic Activity of Parabens

Estrogens, whether synthetic or natural are a primary risk factor for breast cancer. Approximately 20 different studies have established that parabens have estrogenic activity, which makes them relevant when it comes to estrogen-sensitive cancers. A common excuse used to defend the absence of toxicological studies is that parabens are weak in terms of potency. For example, propylparaben and butylparaben are approximately 30,000 and 10,000 less potent than estradiol, respectively.

“However, estradiol occurs in breast tissue in the pictogram per gram of tissue range… but the results reported by Barr et.al. [the featured study] show tissue concentrations of parabens, in the worst cases, in the microgram per gram of breast tissue range, which is one million-fold higher than that of estradiol. Clearly, the magnitude of exposure would seem to more than compensate for the reduction in potency,” Harvey and Everett write.

But that’s not all. A 2011 study reported that methylparaben promotes cell cycling and makes human breast cells more resistant to apoptosis, which, according to the authors can provide the molecular basis for malignant tumor proliferation. Harvey and Everett also cite another study from 2007, which found that propylparaben and butylparaben cause detectable DNA damage.

Rise in Breast Cancer Likely Linked to Chemical Exposures

Harvey and Everett point out that the hypothesis that chemicals in personal care products might be harmful to your health and contribute to breast cancer has a basis in two key observations:

Breast cancer rates have increased in recent decades, which correlates with many lifestyle factors that have undergone significant change during that same time, such as diet, obesity, and use of personal care products containing untested chemicals
Tumors are disproportionately located in the upper, outer quadrant of the breast, and more tumors are found in the left breast than the right, suggesting it may be related to products applied topically to those areas (most people are right-handed, which could make you a bit more heavy-handed when applying products under your left arm than your right)

In my view, one of the key observations by Harvey and Everett is that:

“The tenet that there “is no evidence that personal care products (antiperspirants or deodorants) are related to breast cancer” is technically correct, but only because studies have not been conducted to investigate any relationships. Such arguments provide false assurance by masking the inadequacies of empirical evidence and knowledge.”

Aluminum—Another Cancer-Promoting Ingredient in Antiperspirants

Antiperspirants work by clogging, closing, or blocking the pores that release sweat under your arms—with the active ingredient being aluminum. (If you are using a deodorant-only product it is unlikely to contain aluminum but might contain other chemicals that could be a concern, such as parabens.) Not only does this block one of your body’s routes for detoxification (releasing toxins via your underarm sweat), but it raises concerns about where these metals are going once you roll them (or spray them) on.
Like parabens, aluminum salts can also mimic estrogen, and, just like the featured study, previous research has shown that aluminum is also absorbed and deposited into breast tissueiv. The researchers suggested raised levels of aluminum could even be used as a biomarker for identification of women at increased risk of developing breast cancer.
Aluminum salts can account for 25 percent of the volume of some antiperspirants, and a review of the common sources of aluminum exposure for humans found that antiperspirant use can significantly increase the amount of aluminum absorbed by your body. According to the review, after a single underarm application of antiperspirant, about .012 percent of the aluminum may be absorbedv. This may not sound like much until you multiply it by one or more times a day for a lifetime, which adds up to massive exposure to aluminum—a poison that is not supposed to be in your body, and may be more toxic than mercury. Aside from vaccinations, your antiperspirant may be your largest source of exposure to this poisonous metal!

Be Cautious with Natural Deodorants, Too

There are many brands of aluminum-free deodorants on the market, and many of these are safe alternatives. “Crystal” deodorant stones, which are a popular natural deodorant alternative often used by health-conscious shoppers looking to avoid aluminum, often claim to be aluminum-free, but some actually contain a different type of compound known as an alum, the most common form being potassium alum, also known as potassium aluminum sulfate.
Potassium Alum or Ammonium Alum are natural mineral salts made up of molecules that are too large to be absorbed by your skin. They form a protective layer on your skin that inhibits the growth of odor-causing bacteria. These deodorants are recommended by many cancer treatment centers, but while this may be a better alternative to most antiperspirants and deodorants on the market, it is not completely aluminum-free. Also remember to check the remaining ingredients, keeping a watchful eye out for parabens.
For the last few decades I have not used antiperspirants or deodorants–even natural ones. I noticed that they would cause a yellow stain in the armpit of my shirts. At first I thought the stain was due to my sweat but I quickly realized it was the chemicals in the antiperspirants. I routinely substitute soap and water in my armpits and that seems to work. Although last year I noticed that if I sunbathe my axilla regularly, the UV light actually sterilized my armpits in addition to raising my levels of vitamin D. There is no odor even without using soap and water. Essentially you tan your armpits. The effect is not long lasting and the bacteria repopulate in a day or so unless you expose your armpits to sunlight.

What Can You Do to Prevent Breast Cancer?

Aside from skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer among U.S. women. Unfortunately, while the American Cancer Society widely encourages women to get mammograms, they do not do nearly enough to spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place. The following lifestyle strategies will help to lower your risk of breast cancer:

Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
Optimize your vitamin D level. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 70-100 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities, which are part of my Peak Fitness program. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen is produced in fat tissue.
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.

References:

i Journal of Applied Toxicology January 12, 2012: 32(3); 219-232
ii Journal of Applied Toxicology February 1, 2012: 32(5); 305-309
iii Journal of Applied Toxicology January 12, 2012: 32(3); 219-232
iv Journal of Applied Toxicology April 2011: 31(3):262-9.
v Pharmacology and Toxicology April 2001: 88(4):159-67

By Dr. Mercola

The US Preventive Services Task Force recently published its draft recommendations on hormone replacement therapy1.
While the task force has previously sparked controversy with its recommendations for breast cancer and PSA prostate cancer screening, their recommendations for hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women taking hormones to prevent chronic disease has been met with little resistance.
The group is changing its recommendations for menopausal women who use hormone therapy, either estrogen alone, or in combination with progestin to prevent heart disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline.
They are accepting public comments on the draft until June 26, at which point the group will decide whether to make the draft recommendations final. According to a recent report by CNN2:

“… The task force recommendations “are aimed at older women, who are generally healthy asking, ‘If I take a pill a day, will I prevent a heart attack?” [Dr. Carolyn] Crandall [professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA] said.
… In the face of pretty good evidence, the balance of potential benefits and potential harms leads us not to recommend the use of these therapies,” said Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, a task force member.
The proposed recommendations do not apply to women younger than 50 who have undergone surgical menopause or who are taking hormone therapy to manage menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, according to the panel.
… “The balance of benefits or harms may be different with young women, so you can’t say this absolutely applies to younger women making hormone therapy decisions,” Crandall said.”

HRT as Preventive Strategy against Chronic Disease Not Supported by Data

The task force based their new recommendation on a recent review of the results from nine clinical trials published over the past decade3. The main question the group sought to answer was whether or not hormone replacement therapy (HRT) should be used by otherwise healthy menopausal women “to prevent a hypothetical future health event such as heart disease or cognitive decline.” Alas, according to the task force, “There is no evidence that the therapies would prevent those conditions4.
However, I would point out that this analysis is based on the use of synthetic hormones, not bioidenticals, which I’ll discuss more in a moment. That said, according to the featured CNN article:

“Years ago, in addition to providing relief for menopause symptoms, hormone therapy was thought to offer protection against cardiovascular problems, osteoporosis and dementia, so doctors routinely prescribed it to otherwise healthy women. That practice fell out of favor about 10 years ago when a large clinical trial — the Women’s Health Initiative — designed to confirm these hypotheses was halted early. Women involved in that trial were actually at higher risk for many of the problems that hormone therapy was supposed to prevent.”

Indeed, many large-scale trials, including the Women’s Health Initiative, have indicated that taking estrogen alone, or the combination of estrogen and progestin, actually increased women’s chances of developing strokes, dementia, deep vein thrombosis, urinary incontinence and gallbladder disease.

“The bottom line is clinicians must take all clinical parameters into account for the patient and prescribe the lowest dose for the shortest duration of time,” said Dr. Joseph Sanfilippo, vice chairman of reproductive sciences at Magee-Women’s Hospital in Pittsburgh, in an e-mail to CNN5.”

There are Better Ways to Prevent Heart Disease than HRT

Heart disease prevention is indeed an important concern, but there are far more effective, not to mention safer ways to prevent heart attacks and strokes than using HRT. Key lifestyle strategies that will help protect your heart naturally include:

Boost your good cholesterol and lower your triglyceride levels: Many people strive to reduce their cholesterol levels to protect their heart, but high levels of good (HDL) cholesterol are believed to be protective against heart disease. Meanwhile, high triglycerides are an incredibly potent risk factor. In combination, high triglycerides and low HDL levels are an even bigger risk; this ratio is even more important to your heart health than the standard good vs. bad cholesterol ratio.
In fact, one study found that people with the highest ratio of triglycerides to HDL had 16 times the risk of heart attack as those with the lowest ratio of triglycerides to HDL.
You can increase your HDL levels by exercising and getting plenty of omega-3 fats like those from krill oil. Triglycerides are easily decreased by exercising and avoiding grains and sugars in your diet.
Get enough high quality animal based omega-3 fats: Regularly taking a high-quality animal-based omega-3 supplement such as krill oil is one of the easiest ways to help promote your heart health.
Check your iron levels: If you have excessive levels in your body you are at risk of major oxidation, or premature aging as excessive iron acts as a catalyst to increase your free radical formation though excessive oxidation. Excess iron will also increase your risk of heart disease and cancer. If you are a man, or a woman in menopause, you should get your iron levels tested and, if they’re too high, take steps to reduce them. The simplest way to reduce your iron levels is by donating blood.
Normalize your insulin levels: Elevated insulin levels can lead to insulin resistance, a major risk factor for heart disease. Carefully avoiding sugar/fructose and grains, combined with regular exercise are the most effective strategies for getting your insulin levels back to normal.
Avoid FAKE Estrogens. These are also called xenoestrogens and are pervasive in modern culture. Non-organic foods are loaded with pesticides and herbicides that have potent xenoestrogenic activity. Addtiionally, plastics have BPS and phthalates and many cosmetics have parabens. It is wise to avoid all of these items as they are potent estrogenic influences which can increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.
Keep your mouth healthy: Gum disease can trigger heart attacks, so make sure you keep your teeth, gums and mouth clean.

Should You Treat Menopause with HRT?

As stated earlier, the panel’s recommendation to avoid HRT is only directed to menopausal women who are using synthetic hormones as a preventive measure. It does not apply to women who are managing symptoms of menopause (such as hot flashes, mood swings, and depression), or younger women who take hormones due to having their ovaries removed (surgically-induced menopause).
In these cases, hormone therapy can still be useful, and in the case of surgically-induced menopause, a necessity. However, it’s a complex topic, and synthetic hormone replacement does have its risks, which is why I do not recommend using them. There are a number of different kinds of estrogen: Pharmaceutical estradiol comes from plant molecules modified in a lab, while Premarin and Prempro contain potent horse estrogens that are manufactured from the urine of pregnant mares. All of these are synthetic versions that have their share of side effects.

Can You Believe Drug Companies Used to Pay Me to Promote HRT?

Yes, at one time I was part of the dark side. Many of you may not know this about me, but after finishing my medical residency training in the mid-80s, I was actually a paid speaker for the drug companies. I got paid to fly around the country to lecture physicians about estrogen replacement therapy. At the time, I was convinced it was an ideal strategy for menopausal women because I was manipulated and deceived by the overwhelming “evidence” that was published in the respected peer-reviewed medical journals.
Only decades later would I finally understand the massive corruption and collusion between the drug companies, medical journals and federal regulatory agencies that provided the illusion of scientific legitimacy when the real primary purpose was to increase their sales.
I still believe replacing your hormones can be a good strategy. But in my journey of learning about and truly coming to understand health, I’ve realized that using synthetic hormones, and even natural hormones from animals, is not a wise choice.
A much better alternative is to use bioidentical hormones. These are natural hormones that are “bioidentical” to the ones your body produces. The bioidentical that is prescribed 80 percent of the time is estriol. It’s natural, not a drug, and you get it at compounding pharmacies. It has been used safely for decades, and I believe it’s particularly useful when your ovaries have been removed or you’ve had a hysterectomy. 

The Ideal Way to Administer Bioidentical Hormones

Keep in mind that when it comes to administering bioidentical hormones, some delivery methods are clearly superior to others. Oral supplementation is perhaps your worst option, as your liver processes everything in your digestive tract first, before it enters your bloodstream. Any method that bypasses your liver will therefore be more effective. Hormone creams are one common alternative that achieves this. However, since hormones are fat-soluble, they can build up in your fatty tissues and lead to having too much in your body. This in turn can disrupt other hormones. It’s also near impossible to accurately determine the dose when using a cream.
That is why I STRONGLY recommend trans mucosal administration. Please
listen to my interview at the top of the article with Dr. Wright in
which we discuss this near the end of the interview. 

 
What to do BEFORE Taking Hormones for Menopause

Natural bioidentical hormones can offer relief from menopausal symptoms, but I recommend not using them as your first go-to option. Treating hormone imbalances requires a whole-body approach; the best approaches are often preventive and involve diet, exercise and other lifestyle-based strategies.
For instance, both estrogen and progesterone are necessary in the female cycle, and their balance is key for optimal health. Many premenopausal women have an imbalance of these hormones. And if you have insufficient levels of progesterone to counter excessive estrogen, this imbalance can be further exacerbated by chronic stress. Therefore, your answer might not necessarily lie in using hormones, but rather addressing your stress levels so that your body can normalize your hormone levels naturally.
Likewise, a healthful diet, low in processed foods (which are high in health-harming sugars/fructose, grains, genetically engineered ingredients, trans fats, processed salt, and other chemical additives) and high in whole organic foods, along with regular exercise, can go a long way to keeping your hormones balanced as you age. It’s important to realize that processed foods—all those refined carbohydrates, and processed and heated fats, all serve to raise your estrogen to abnormal levels—as much as twice the normal, which are maintained for the better part of the adult lives of most American women.
This is a MAJOR contributing cause of menopausal symptoms in the first place. Additional strategies you can try before resorting to bioidentical hormones include:

Phytoestrogens: Consuming plenty of phytoestrogens (plant-estrogens) such as licorice and alfalfa before menopause can also help moderate your day-to-day estrogen levels so that when menopause comes, the drop won’t be so dramatic. Just don’t make the mistake of using unfermented soy, which can wreak havoc on your health in a number of different ways.
Optimize your vitamin D levels: This is a must for gene regulation and optimal health. For more information, I recommend you watch my one-hour video lecture on this essential nutrient.
Polyphenols: Certain polyphenols have also been shown to have some HRT-like benefits without the drawbacks, and are associated with a lowered risk of heart disease. Royal Maca seems to be an amazing adaptogenic herbal solution for menopause that has helped many women. Be sure to avoid the inexpensive varieties, as they typically don’t work. If you chose this option make sure to obtain the authentic version from Peru.
Animal-based omega-3 fat: You’ll also want to get plenty high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil.
Black cohosh: Black Cohosh may help regulate body temperature and hot flashes. In many cases, these lifestyle strategies will be very effective in relieving menopausal symptoms, but in cases where it is not enough, bioidentical hormones may be able to help. However, you’ll want to make sure you get your hormonal levels checked properly before embarking on any kind of hormone supplementation program, and work with a knowledgeable health care practitioner who can guide you.

References:

i US Preventive Services Task Force, Menopausal Hormone Therapy for the Primary Prevention of Chronic Conditions: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement DRAFT, May 2012
ii CNN May 29, 2012
iii US Preventive Services Task Force, Menopausal Hormone Therapy for the Primary Prevention of Chronic Conditions, A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations, May 2012
iv CNN May 29, 2012
v See reference iv

By Dr. Mercola

Reaching puberty is a rite of passage that we’ve all been through, but children are now reaching it earlier than ever before, and while precocious puberty in girls has received most of the attention, we now know the trend applies to boys as well.

In the 19th century, the onset of menstruation in girls occurred around the age of 15. Now the average age of the first period is around 12. Some girls develop breasts as early as age seven1 .

According to a recent study in the journal Pediatrics2, boys are now beginning sexual development anywhere from six months to two years earlier than the medically accepted standard based on previous studies.

African-American boys were found to hit the onset of puberty the soonest, starting around the age of nine. Caucasian and Hispanic boys begin developing around the age of 10.

“The causes and public health implications of this apparent shift in US boys to a lower age of onset for the development of secondary sexual characteristics in US boys needs further exploration,” the authors write.

Indeed, while some may shrug off the trend of earlier maturation, it’s actually pretty significant, as it can affect both physical and psychological health in a number of ways, including raising the future risk for hormone-related cancers. Girls who enter puberty earlier are at an increased risk of breast cancer, for example, due to the early rise in estrogen.

The trend also raises serious questions about environmental factors spurring this development. Lead researcher Marcia Herman-Giddens told CNN Health3:

“The changes are too fast. Genetics take maybe hundreds, thousands of years. You have to look at something in the environment. That would include everything from (a lack of) exercise to junk food to TV to chemicals.”

Environmental Chemicals a Likely Factor

Scientists have brought forth a number of potential explanations for the rising rates of early puberty, but one that deserves special attention is environmental chemicals, and particularly xeno-estrogens, i.e. estrogen-mimicking chemicals. These compounds behave like steroid hormones and can alter the timing of puberty, and affect disease risk throughout life.

In adults, xeno-estrogens have been linked to decreased sperm quality, stimulation of mammary gland development in men, disrupted reproductive cycles and ovarian dysfunction, obesity, cancer and heart disease, among numerous other health problems.

We’re surrounded by hormone-disrupting chemicals these days, many of which are plasticizers. Bisphenol A (BPA) for example, is an industrial petrochemical that acts as a synthetic estrogen, and can be found plastics and tin can linings, in dental sealants, and on cash-register receipts. Three years ago, laboratory tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected BPA in the umbilical cord blood of 90 percent of newborn infants tested — along with more than 230 other chemicals!

In September 2010, Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, but to date no other country has followed suit, although BPA has been banned in baby bottles in Canada, Europe and the United States. Frustratingly, the US FDA has denied the request to ban BPA, however many American companies have voluntarily removed the chemical from their products, in response to consumer demand. So, if you check around, you can find a lot of BPA-free products.

However, buyer beware, as it recently came to light that some companies are simply replacing the offending BPA with another less known but equally toxic chemical called bisphenol-S (BPS)! Not only does BPS appear to have similar hormone-mimicking characteristics to BPA, but research suggests it is actually significantly less biodegradable, and more heat-stable and photo-resistant, than BPA.

10 Top Offenders that Can Disrupt Your Hormones

Beside BPA and BPS, other top offenders you should be aware of, and watch out for, include:

Phthalates, a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re also one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters, found in everything from processed food packaging and shower curtains to detergents, toys and beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances. Exposure to phthalates can lead to incomplete testicular descent in fetuses, reduced sperm counts, testicular atrophy or structural abnormality and inflammation in newborns.
Fluoride, which is added to the majority of public water supplies in the United States. Research has shown that animals treated with fluoride had lower levels of circulating melatonin, as reflected by reduced levels of melatonin metabolites in the animals’ urine. This reduced level of circulating melatonin was accompanied — as might be expected — by an earlier onset of puberty in the fluoride-treated female animals.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a likely carcinogen found in grease- and water-resistant coatings and non-stick cookware.
Methoxychlor and Vinclozin, an insecticide and a fungicide respectively, have been found to cause changes to male mice born for as many as four subsequent generations after the initial exposure.

Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). Known to be potent endocrine disrupters, these chemicals affect gene expression by turning on or off certain genes, and interfere with the way your glandular system works.
Bovine growth hormones (rBGH) commonly added to commercial dairy have been implicated as a contributor to premature adolescence.

MSG, a food additive that’s been linked to reduced fertility.
Non-fermented soy products, which are loaded with hormone-like substances.

DDE (a breakdown product of the pesticide DDT)
PCBs

New Concern: Metalloestrogens

Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing estrogen-mimicking compounds: “metalloestrogens.” The following metals, which are added to thousands of consumer products, including vaccines, have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens:4

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenite
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt

Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenite
Tin
Vanadate

Tips to Reduce Exposure to Hormone-Disrupting Substances

While young girls and boys may show obvious signs of exposure to hormone-disrupting substances via early puberty, other signals are more insidious and may not show up until a disease is already present. You can cut back on your family’s exposure to these dangerous chemicals by following these 12 guidelines. Pregnant women and women who may become pregnant should pay particular attention to reducing their exposure as much as possible to protect the health of their unborn baby:

Eat whole, preferably organic, produce and free-range, organic meats to reduce your exposure to added hormones, pesticides and fertilizers. Also avoid milk and other dairy products that contain the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST)
Eat mostly raw, fresh foods. Processed, prepackaged foods (of all kinds) are a major source of soy and chemicals such as BPA and phthalates.
Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap and canned foods (which are often lined with BPA-containing liners).
Use glass baby bottles and BPA-free sippy cups for your little ones.
Make sure your baby’s toys are BPA-free, such as pacifiers, teething rings and anything your child may be prone to suck on.
Only use natural cleaning products in your home to avoid phthalates.
Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Database5 is a great resource for finding personal care products that are free of phthalates, parabens and other potentially dangerous chemicals.
Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.
Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
Avoid non-fermented soy, especially if you’re pregnant. Also, never use soy-based infant formula.

By Dr. Mercola

Hormone replacement is a complex topic, and medical recommendations have fluctuated back and forth when it comes to replacing hormones like estrogen in women suffering from symptoms of menopause and surgically induced medical menopause following a hysterectomy.
In the past, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was also widely prescribed for preventive purposes, based in part on early observational studies that had suggested it could help protect women against heart disease, weak bones, and dementia.
In fact, many may not know this, but I was a paid speaker for the drug companies in the mid-80s, promoting the benefits of hormone replacement therapy. This was about 10 years before I converted to natural medicine and 15 years before the landmark studies showed the serious dangers of standard hormone replacement therapy.
The tide quickly turned a decade ago…
In July 2002, the 15-year long Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) abruptly ended its combination of estrogen and progestin therapy study, three years ahead of schedule, when their data revealed higher rates of breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots in the population taking the hormones, compared to those receiving a placebo.
The WHI findings triggered enormous changes in the use of hormone therapy, and by 2003, prescriptions had dropped by 38 percent.
Between 2001 and 2011, estrogen replacement therapy in women aged 50-59 subsequently dropped by a whopping 79 percent. Now, a new study1 suggests that denouncing the use of HRT across the board may have been a mistake, especially for women having undergone a hysterectomy.
This certainly makes sense, since your body needs estrogen and other sex hormones for optimal functioning. As reported by both Forbes2 and Time Magazine3, anywhere from 18,600 to as many as 91,600 women in medical menopause may have died prematurely over the last decade as a result of avoiding estrogen replacement.
According to the study4, a conservative estimate of the true number of deaths caused by estrogen avoidance is likely to be around 50,000:

“Estrogen therapy in younger postmenopausal women is associated with a decisive reduction in all-cause mortality, but estrogen use in this population is low and continuing to fall.
Our data indicate an associated annual mortality toll in the thousands of women aged 50 to 59 years. Informed discussion between these women and their health care providers about the effects of ET is a matter of considerable urgency.”

Avoiding HRT May Have Killed 50,000 Women Over the Last Decade

As reported by Time Magazine5, and discussed in the featured video:

“Before the WHI study, about 90 percent of women who had a hysterectomy would have relied on estrogen therapy to replace what their reproductive system no longer produced. Following WHI, however, 10 percent of these women used the hormone, and based on a formula the researchers created to estimate their survival rates, they determined that 50,000 women died during the study period, between 2002 and 2011, prematurely.
[N]one of these women, who were aged 50 to 59 at the start of the study, lived to reach their 70s. Most died of heart disease, bolstering the connection that earlier studies had found between estrogen-only therapy and a lower risk of heart problems among women who had a hysterectomy.”

The study found that estrogen therapy for women in premature surgical menopause was associated with “a decisive reduction in all-cause mortality,” primarily by reducing deadly heart attacks and deaths from breast cancer. The researchers believe the protective effect found in their study may be due to the fact that they only analyzed the effects of estrogen-only therapy, not the combination treatment of estrogen and progesterone used in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and other studies finding troublesome effects.

“It may be that the combination HRTs are what fuel the negative health effects seen in previous studies,” Forbes writes.

But the featured media reports fail to mention that in April 2004, the WHI also halted the portion of the study for estrogen-only therapy, upon finding the hormone did not offer any protective heart disease prevention, but rather increased your risk of stroke and blood clots.
Indeed, many large-scale trials, besides the WHI, have indicated that taking estrogen alone, or the combination of estrogen and progestin, increased women’s chances of developing not only strokes, but also dementia, deep vein thrombosis, urinary incontinence and gallbladder disease. There are several factors to seriously evaluate when considering if hormone replacement therapy would be wise for you or someone you love.

Surgically-induced menopause vs. natural menopause vs. using HRT for preventive purposes
Your age
The form of hormone you take (bioidentical vs. synthetic). For example, the WHI study used one specific formulation of HRT called Prempro, which contains potent horse estrogens that are manufactured from the urine of pregnant mares, in combination with a synthetic (read FAKE) form of progesterone (medroxyprogesterone acetate). It’s likely that bioidentical natural formulations would have resulted in a different outcome…
The manner in which you administer the hormone

Should Women in Medical Menopause Use Estrogen?

Just last year, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations on hormone replacement therapy6 based on review of the available evidence, advising women over the age of 50 to avoid HRT—either estrogen alone, or in combination with progestin—for the purpose of preventing heart disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline. The recommendation to avoid HRT does not apply to women younger than 50 who have undergone surgical menopause or who are taking hormone therapy to manage menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes.
Once you undergo a hysterectomy before menopause, it is highly likely you need to replace the hormones lost since your body can no longer produce them on its own. So yes, most women in surgical menopause would be well advised to consider HRT. The issue at that point is more a matter of selecting the most appropriate form of hormone replacement. Many experts believe the bioidentical hormone estradiol is all you would really need.
Unfortunately, doctors have, and still often do, prescribe an HRT regimen that includes the completely unnatural progestin. Progesterone is made by a woman’s ovaries, and helps balance the effects of estrogen. Bioidentical progesterone, which is completely natural, can be created from certain oils in yam and soy plants. Your body recognizes this bioidentical formulation, which helps prevent adverse reactions, as long as it’s prescribed and administered appropriately and in the correct dose. However, natural progesterone cannot be patented, which is where progestin comes in. Progestin is a synthetic form of progesterone that mimics the actions of progesterone, and when it comes to medicine, patent is king, since without it, there’s not much profit to be made by the pharmaceutical companies.

Beware of Synthetic Hormone Replacement

Synthetic progestins (like Provera) are responsible for many, if not most, of the detrimental side effects of HRT. For example, one meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal in January 20057 found that synthetic HRT is linked to an increased risk of stroke, typically ischemic (caused by blockages of blood flow to your brain). In fact, synthetic HRT boosts your risk of stroke by almost one-third, and your risk of fatal or disabling stroke by more than half.
One of the trials reviewed in that meta analysis also linked synthetic HRT with higher risks of both breast cancer and heart attack. The trial (which included almost 17,000 women over 50), also found taking HRT for five years doubled your risk of life-threatening blood clots. Other potential side effects of HRT include:

Osteoporosis
High blood pressure
Vaginal bleeding
Skin rashes and acne
Weight gain

Ideally, Use Bioidentical Hormones

Premarin (the most popular estrogen replacement) comes from horse estrogens and is not bioidentical. While it may sound “natural,” I recommend avoiding animal estrogens for hormone replacement, as there are excellent human bioidentical estrogen hormones easily available through any compounding pharmacist. Your body recognizes these as “normal” and virtually identical to the hormones produced in your body, which makes them far safer than synthetic prescription versions.
There are three types of estrogens commonly used in bioidentical hormone replacement therapy: estrone, estradiol, and estriol. A common mixed formulation known as Tri-est includes 80 percent estriol with 10 percent each of estrone and estradiol.
Estradiol is the primary human female hormone found in all premenopausal women, whereas estriol is produced in significant amounts during pregnancy. Estriol is considered the safest of the three and is the most commonly prescribed. It has been used safely for decades, and I believe it’s particularly useful when you’ve had a hysterectomy.
Unfortunately, there is still much unnecessary concern about bioidentical estrogen supplementation. What the FDA, most doctors, and patients do not realize is that bioidentical hormone supplements can actually optimize your health. That said, your hormone levels should ideally be monitored by either blood, urine, or saliva, to ensure they reach a target level that corresponds to the reference ranges for healthy young women. I also believe that menopausal hot flashes that do not resolve with phytoestrogens such as black cohosh, are another valid indication for short-term estrogen use. However, if estrogen is used, it is nearly always wise to use it in conjunction with natural progesterone.

The Best Way to Administer Bioidentical Hormones

Keep in mind that when it comes to administering bioidentical hormones, some delivery methods are clearly superior to others. Oral supplementation is perhaps your worst option, as your liver processes everything in your digestive tract first, before it enters your bloodstream, which will metabolize most of the swallowed hormones to inactive and potentially harmful derivatives. Any method that bypasses your liver will therefore be more effective.
Hormone creams are one common alternative that achieves this. However, since hormones are fat-soluble, they can build up in your fatty tissues and lead to having too much in your body. This in turn can disrupt other hormones. It’s also near impossible to accurately determine the dose when using a cream. Sublingual drops can be a good option, as it enters your blood stream directly and will not build up in your tissues like the cream can. It’s also much easier to determine the dose you’re taking, as each drop is about one milligram.
In the 90s, I prescribed transdermal progesterone cream based on the now deceased Dr. John Lee. That worked well for most of the women but after 3-6 months most started to lose the benefits. However, I now believe the ideal delivery method is via trans mucosal administration. For more information about this, please listen to my interview with Dr. Wright. Administration methods are discussed toward the end of this interview.

Educate Yourself on the Risks and Benefits of HRT

As you can see, HRT is a very complex subject where it’s virtually impossible to make blanket statements covering a majority of women. The risk versus benefit ratio is likely to shift depending on which camp you’re in here. Factors to take into consideration are:

Have you had a hysterectomy?
Are you pre- or post-menopausal?
And are you considering HRT for prevention of chronic disease, opposed to treating symptoms of menopause?

Keep in mind that treating hormone imbalances requires a holistic approach; the best approaches are often preventive and involve diet, exercise and other lifestyle-based strategies. For instance, both estrogen and progesterone are necessary in the female cycle, and their balance is key for optimal health. Many women have an imbalance of these hormones, regardless of their age. And if you have insufficient levels of progesterone to counter excessive estrogen, this imbalance can be further exacerbated by chronic stress.
So your answer—provided you’re not in surgical menopause due to hysterectomy—might not necessarily lie in using hormones, but rather in addressing your stress levels so that your body can normalize your hormone levels naturally… Refined carbohydrates, processed and heated fats, empty foods — and too much of them — all serve to raise your estrogen to abnormal levels, as much as twice the normal, which are maintained for the better part of the adult lives of most American women. This is a MAJOR contributing cause of menopausal symptoms in the first place.
For some women, consuming phytoestrogens (plant-estrogens), such as licorice and alfalfa, before menopause can also help moderate your day-to-day estrogen levels so that when menopause comes, the drop won’t be so dramatic. (Beware, however, that soy is not a good option here.) You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D levels are optimized, as this is a must for gene regulation and optimal health.
Certain polyphenols have also been shown to have some HRT-like benefits without the drawbacks, and are associated with a lowered risk of heart disease. Royal Matcha seems to be an amazing adaptogenic herbal solution for menopause that has helped many women. Be sure to avoid the inexpensive varieties, as they typically don’t work. If you choose this option, make sure to obtain the authentic version from Japan. You’ll also want to get plenty high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil, and Black Cohosh may help regulate body temperature and hot flashes.
If you’re in medical menopause, avoiding HRT due to fears about side effects could be a mistake. I recommend discussing your individual situation with an endocrinologist well-versed in bioidentical hormone replacement to discuss risks and benefits and devise an appropriate treatment plan.

By Dr. Mercola

Birth control pills are the most popular form of contraception among U.S. women. They’re taken by 16 percent of this population, while just over 7 percent use long-acting reversible forms of contraception, such as a hormonal intrauterine device or implant.
What these pills, devices and implants have in common is that they’re forms of hormonal birth control — that is, they contain or release synthetic forms of hormones, such as estrogen and progestin (a form of progesterone), which work to prevent pregnancy in various ways.  
The problem is that these sex hormones also affect mood and other biological processes and artificially manipulating them can lead to many unintended consequences in your body, some of them uncomfortable and some quite serious, including altering your mental health.
Birth Control Pills Linked to Depression
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark analyzed data from more than 1 million women over a period of 14 years. None of the women, who were between 15 and 34 years of age, had been diagnosed with depression at the start of the study.1
However, the analysis showed that women who used hormonal birth control had a 40 percent increased risk of developing depression after six months compared to women who did not. The risk was greatest among adolescents.
The use of hormonal birth control was also associated with subsequent use of antidepressant drugs. Certain types of hormonal contraception had varying risks. Specifically, the use of:

Progestin-only pills led to a 1.3-fold higher rate of antidepressant use

Combined birth control pills led to a 1.2 higher rate

Transdermal patch led to a 2-fold increased risk

Vaginal ring led to a 1.5-fold increased risk

Anecdotal Reports Suggest Hormonal Contraceptives Lead to Mood Changes
Lead study supervisor, Dr. Øjvind Lidegaard, a professor at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, told CNN:2
“We have known for decades that women’s sex hormones estrogen and progesterone have an influence on many women’s mood.
Therefore, it is not very surprising that also external artificial hormones acting in the same way and on the same centers as the natural hormones might also influence women’s mood or even be responsible for depression development.”
Despite this knowledge, many health care professionals are reluctant to suggest that the risks of hormonal birth control may be too steep for some women, especially those with a history of depression.
While scientific validation has yielded some conflicting results, one report in the Oxford Medical Case Reports journal detailed two cases of women with a history of depression who developed depressive symptoms after treatment with hormonal contraceptives (the combined oral contraceptive pill, progestin-only pill and combined contraceptive vaginal ring).3

Case Reports Detail Onset of Depressive Symptoms After Use of Hormonal Contraceptives
In one case, a 31-year-old woman experienced gradual improvement of her depressive symptoms after she stopped using the vaginal ring. However, “a sudden and acute worsening occurred” shortly after she started using a combined birth control pill.
About a month later, she again experienced a worsening of symptoms “almost simultaneously with the initiation of treatment with combined contraceptive vaginal ring.” The researchers noted:4
“HC [Hormonal contraception] was again interrupted, with a subsequent clear improvement in depressive symptoms. The patient remained stable without depression for the following [six] months.”
In the second case, a 33-year-old woman developed depressive symptoms shortly after starting a progestin-only birth control pill. Her symptoms disappeared completely within one week of stopping the pill. The researchers concluded:5
“Caution should be used when starting up treatment with HC in women diagnosed with depression, since it might in some cases lead to worsening of the depressive symptoms.
Likewise, attention should be paid to the pre-existing use of HC in women who develop depression, as discontinuation of HC might in some cases be sufficient to treat the depression.”

Hormonal Contraceptives Are Linked to Glaucoma and Other Health Risks
Women who used oral contraceptives for longer than three years were more than twice as likely to have been diagnosed with glaucoma, a leading cause of vision loss and blindness, according to one study.6
The results were so striking that the researchers recommended women taking the pill for three or more years be screened for glaucoma and followed closely by an ophthalmologist.
It might seem unusual that contraceptives could affect your vision, but it’s important to understand that there are body-wide repercussions of artificially manipulating your hormones.
Most birth control pills, patches, vaginal rings and implants contain a combination of the derivatives of the hormones estrogen and progestin. They work by mimicking these hormones in your body to fool your reproductive system into producing the following effects:

Preventing your ovaries from releasing eggs

Thickening your cervical mucus to help block sperm from fertilizing an egg

Thinning the lining of your uterus, which makes it difficult for an egg to implant, should it become fertilized

However, your reproductive system does not exist in a bubble. It is connected to all of your other bodily systems, and therefore hormonal contraception is capable of altering much more than your reproductive status.
According to one report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 30 percent of women who have used the pill and nearly half of women using other hormonal contraception methods stopped their use due to “dissatisfaction,” which was most often caused by side effects.7 Potential health risks include:

? Cancer: Women who take birth control pills increase their risk of cervical and breast cancers, and possibly liver cancer as well.
? Thinner bones: Women who take birth control pills have lower bone mineral density (BMD) than women who have never used oral contraceptives.
? Heart disease:Long-term use of birth control pills may increase plaque artery buildups in your body that may raise your risk of heart disease.

? Fatal blood clots: Birth control pills increase your risk of blood clots and subsequent stroke.
? Impaired muscle gains: Oral contraceptive use may impair muscle gains from resistance exercise training in women.
? Long-term sexual dysfunction: The pill may interfere with a protein that keeps testosterone unavailable, leading to long-term sexual dysfunction including decreased desire and arousal.

? Migraines
? Weight gain and mood changes
? Yeast overgrowth and infection

The Pill May Be a Libido Killer
About 15 percent of women taking oral contraceptives report a decrease in libido, likely because they lower levels of sex hormones, including testosterone.8 One study also found seven times the amount of the libido-killing sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) was present in women who took oral contraceptives compared to women who never used the pill.
Even though SHBG levels declined in women who had stopped taking the pill, they still remained three to four times higher than they were in women with no history of using oral contraceptives, which suggests oral contraceptives may kill a woman’s libido for the long-term. Researchers concluded:9
“Long-term sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences might result as a consequence of chronic SHBG elevation [in women who take, or have taken, oral contraceptives].”

Synthetic Hormones in Drinking Water May Be Increasing Cancer Rates in Men
It’s not only women who are at risk from synthetic hormones contained in hormonal contraceptives. An analysis of data from 100 countries found oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer, which may be due to exposure to synthetic estrogens excreted by women that end up in the drinking water supply.10
While it’s been argued that only a small amount of additional estrogen is excreted by a woman using this form of contraception, this “small amount” is compounded by millions of women, many of whom use the pill for long periods of time. Also, synthetic estrogen and progestin does not biodegrade rapidly and is far harder to remove through conventional water purification systems, resulting in greater accumulation in the environment.
While this study did not prove cause and effect — that is, it did not prove that environmental estrogen from women’s oral contraceptive use causes prostate cancer in men — it did find a significant association between the two that deserves further investigation, especially in light of estrogen’s well-established role in a wide range of cancers and the prevalence of hormonal contraceptive use.

Non-Hormonal Methods of Contraception
Women and men looking for reversible non-hormonal options of contraception may be surprised to learn that there are many options. Conventional health care providers typically steer patients toward the popular hormonal options, but they are far from the only ones.
Barrier methods, which work by preventing the man’s sperm from reaching the woman’s egg, include the diaphragm, cervical cap, sponge and male and female condoms. None of these are foolproof, which is why many couples use them in combination with fertility awareness-based methods.
Fertility awareness involves knowing when a woman’s fertile period occurs each month, and then avoiding sexual intercourse during (and just prior to) this time (or using a barrier method if you do).
When used consistently and correctly, fertility awareness is highly effective at preventing pregnancy; fewer than 1 to 5 women out of 100 will become pregnant using fertility awareness in this manner.11 In order to track fertility, a number of methods can be used by women, including tracking basal body temperature, mucus production, saliva indicators and cervical position.
Many women use a combination of methods, and there are also commercially available ovulation monitors that can be used in conjunction with the other methods. Ninety-nine percent of U.S. women of reproductive age have used at least one contraceptive method at some point in their lifetime, with 88 percent choosing hormonal options.12
However, you may be relieved to learn that you don’t have to subject yourself to the risks of hormonal contraception, or learn to live with the side effects, in order to take control of your reproductive health. An experienced holistic health care provider can help you choose the best non-hormonal contraception options for you.

By Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH and Lionel Milgrom, Ph.D., RHom, MARH
If the common physician, scientist and educated consumer were to believe Wikipedia, they would assume that there is absolutely no research that shows the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in the treatment of any ailment. Furthermore, they would conclude homeopathic medicines are so small in dose, there is literally “nothing” in a homeopathic medicine.
And, if you are this gullible and vulnerable to Big Pharma propaganda, then we’ve got an island to sell you for $24! According to The Washington Post, Wikipedia’s article on homeopathy and Jesus Christ are the two most controversial on that website in four leading languages (English, French, German and Spanish).
Research Shows Efficacy of Homeopathic Medicine
The fact of the matter is that research showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines has been published in some of the world’s most respected medical journals. Here’s a roll call of just a few of them:
The Lancet;1 BMJ2,3(British Medical Journal); Chest (the publication of the American College of Chest Physicians);4 Pediatrics (publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics);5 Cancer(journal of the American Cancer Society);6 Journal of Clinical Oncology;7 Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal (publication of the European Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases);8 European Journal of Pediatrics (publication of the Swiss Society of Pediatrics and the Belgium Society of Pediatrics).9
Would you be shocked to learn that Wikipedia doesn’t mention eight of the nine references here? Not only have individual studies found efficacy in homeopathic medicines, but various systematic reviews or meta-analyses have likewise concluded the effects of homeopathic medicines are different to those of a placebo. The newest review of homeopathic research published in Systematic Reviews10 confirmed a difference between the effects of homeopathic treatment and of placebo.
In reviewing the “highest quality studies,” the researchers found that patients given homeopathic treatment were almost twice as likely to experience a therapeutic benefit as those given a placebo.
Further, in reviewing a total of 22 clinical trials, patients given homeopathic remedies experienced greater than 50 percent likelihood to have benefited from the treatment than those given a placebo. Once again, Wikipedia doesn’t even mention this new review of clinical research in homeopathy.
This important review of clinical research also acknowledged that four of the five leading previous systematic reviews of homeopathic research found a benefit from homeopathic treatment over that of placebo:

“Five systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats, the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo.”

And if that wasn’t enough, the largest and most comprehensive review of basic science research (fundamental physiochemical research, botanical studies, animal studies and in vitro studies using human cells) and clinical research into homeopathy ever sponsored by a governmental agency was undertaken recently in Switzerland.11
This Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects and specific changes to cells and living organisms. It also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy. Would it puzzle you that this important review of homeopathic research is not even mentioned or referenced by Wikipedia?
Homeopathic Conference at the Royal Society of Medicine
July 14, 2018, we attended a groundbreaking conference in London entitled “New Horizons in Water Science — ‘The Evidence for Homeopathy?'” in the hallowed halls of the U.K.’s Royal Society of Medicine.
Held at the behest of (Lord) Aaron Kenneth Ward-Atherton, who organized and chaired the event, Ward-Atherton not only is a practicing homeopath and integrated medical physician, but also has been a formal adviser on integrated medicine to a member of the U.K. government’s Department of Health and Social Care, and had ongoing support from various peers in the British House of Lords.
This conference will no doubt have sent shockwaves around the world, as delegates from over 20 countries listened in awe to two Nobel Laureates (Cambridge physicist Professor Emeritus Brian Josephson and AIDS virus discoverer, Dr. Luc Montagnier) and several world-class scientists of equal academic stature from the U.S., U.K., Israel and Russia.
And what they were saying was pure heresy to conventional medicine! As it turns out, research in water science seems to support the notion there is a significant difference between the biological and physical actions of homeopathic medicines and plain ordinary water.
We should point out that this special conference did not try to review the body of clinical research (above) that verifies the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, nor did it seek to describe all the basic science studies that show that homeopathic medicines have biological or physical effects.
Instead, this conference chose to focus on more fundamental questions: Does the process of remedy production in homeopathy (i.e., dilution and succession — vigorous shaking — of a medicinal substance in water/alcohol) have an effect on the water’s long-range structure that is different from simple pure water? And, second, are their sound and plausible explanations for how homeopathic medicines persist in water solutions despite multiple dilutions?
Because most physicians and scientists are completely unfamiliar with the fascinating and amazing qualities and abilities of water, their assertions on what is and isn’t possible with homeopathic medicines represent an embarrassingly uninformed viewpoint.
Such assertions are at best unscientific; at worst, they simply represent sheer ignorance. The best scientists are humble in their assertions due to the fact that they know their knowledge is always limited. The average physician or scientist, however, may tend to arrogance, particularly on those subjects which they actually know nothing about.
Biomolecules Communicate Over Distance
Brian Josephson Ph.D., of University of Cambridge, U.K., was the first speaker. He echoed remarks he had made in the magazine New Scientist, saying:

“Simple-minded analysis might suggest that water, being a fluid, it cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking.

There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.”

Josephson powerfully critiqued generally accepted theories of how biomolecules react with their substrates. Conventionally, these are thought to “match” like a lock and a key, but only when they are in direct physical contact. Not so, says Josephson.
Like his famous predecessor, Jacques Benveniste (who Josephson hosted at Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory back in March 1999), he argues that they can “communicate” over some distance long before they come together, and that such interactions are best described by quantum theory and electromagnetic signaling.
Josephson also lambasted those scientists who demand that homeopathic medicines need to get “chemically analyzed.” He asserted that applying chemical analysis to homeopathic remedies will tell you no more about their properties than applying chemical analysis to a CD will tell you what music is on it. Chemical analysis is too limited a tool for either.
Further, Josephson went on to show some remarkably beautiful photos and videos that provide powerful evidence of how hypersensitive water is to sound. Using an impressive new technology called cymascopy (developed by acoustics engineer John Stuart Reid),12 Josephson was able to demonstrate the incredible influence sound has on water using this technology, producing stunning dynamic wave patterns in water that follow changes in a sound’s pitch.13
This video shows dramatically how the dynamic structure of water changes as music is played. And for this to occur, there has to be an ordering of molecules within the water to give it that dynamic structure, what is commonly referred to as a “memory.”

“Such is life,” Josephson concluded. “Order arises spontaneously. Creation of order (ordering) is a part of nature. Order includes disorder (fluctuations), so order requires order to be present. With crystals, the order is static; with life it is dynamic. There we have ordering within activity. Up until now, our present understanding of all this is qualitative and limited, but this must be the next step for science.”

Finally, Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, “The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments.”
Physical Properties of Aqueous Systems
Next to speak was Vladimir Voeikov from the Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia. A world expert on the chemical and physical properties of aqueous systems and their key role in the vital processes of living systems, Voeikov also took aim at critics who scoff at homeopathy’s plausibility.
He then launched into a description of the extensive and highly detailed work on the biological effects of ultrahigh dilutions (or UHDs) that has been ongoing in Russia since the 1980s.
One of the unfortunate side effects of the perennial distrust existing between Russia and the West has been access to research like this, mainly because it has appeared only in Russian (i.e., Cyrillic) journals. Consequently, Voeikov had a lot of ground to make up — which he did in no uncertain terms!
And, much to the audience’s surprise, it turns out that Benveniste (who in 1988 was so pilloried by scientists, skeptics and the journal Nature, his reputation was trashed and he lost his laboratories and his funding) was by no means the first to suggest that solutions diluted and strongly agitated to the point where there couldn’t possibly be any molecules of the original substance left could still exert biological effects.
Delving back into the literature, it had been announced around a century before Benveniste. In 1955, a review had already been published into the action of UHDs.
Drawing on his and his Russian colleagues’ work, Voeikov concluded that conventional ideas of how water dissolves substances is actually incorrect. Until now, when something dissolves in water, its particles were thought to be randomly distributed throughout the solvent. As the solution is continually diluted, these particles simply reduce in number until at a certain dilution (known as the Avogadro limit) they disappear completely.
Consequently, if a solution is diluted beyond this limit, as there are apparently no particles left, such UHDs cannot possibly exert any effects, let alone on biological systems. Therefore, homeopathy (which sometimes uses dilutions of substances way beyond the Avogadro limit) must be complete bunkum. So much for conventional thinking.
What Voeikov and his colleagues have shown time and again is that the process of homeopathic dilution and agitation, even down past the Avogadro limit (so that no particles are supposed to still be present), does NOT get rid of all the dissolved substance.
Instead, microscopically tiny “clumps” of the dissolved substance — known as nanoassociates — remain behind and these are biologically active. What’s more, various analytical techniques can be used to track these nanoassociates, and they affect water in many ways that make it different from pure water, e.g., electrical conductivity and surface tension. So, a solution diluted and agitated beyond the Avogadro limit is anything but pure water.
Nanoassociates Violate Conventional Laws of Behavior
If that wasn’t enough, Voeikov and his colleagues have shown that so-called ordinary solutions — the kind that we make up every day and that have not been sequentially diluted and agitated as homeopaths do — also contain nanoassociates, violating what has for years been understood as “laws of behavior” prescribed in standard textbooks on aqueous solutions.
So, not only are all those skeptics and naysayers going to have to get used to homeopathic dilutions and their effects being real, they will have to completely reassess their understanding of what happens when ANY substance is dissolved in water. Those whose solemn duty it is to rewrite textbooks are going to have a field day!
Barely able to catch our breath, we were then treated to one of the most inspirational talks of the whole conference, delivered by Jerry Pollack, Ph.D., professor of bioengineering at Seattle’s University of Washington. Pollack is probably best known for his 2014 book, “The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor,” in which he outlines in highly readable terms some of his and his team’s amazing discoveries about water.
Exclusion Zone Water May Have Significant Implications for Homeopathy
Chiefly, these concern what happens to water when it is in contact with a surface, e.g., a membrane. And for any doubting Thomas out there we should point out that Pollack’s amazing discoveries about water have been independently verified many times.
It turns out that the water molecules closest to the membrane surface form an almost crystalline alignment that has the effect of excluding any dissolved particles in the water. And these exclusion zones — or EZs, as they are called — have properties that are totally different from the bulk water, and whose consequences will have profound effects not only on our understanding of water, but how we use it.
For example, depending on the nature of the membrane surface, charge separation occurs between the EZ layer and the bulk water phase. Pollack showed us how this phenomenon could be used, not only to produce an incredibly simple battery powered only by radiant energy, but how it could be the basis of a water desalination system. At the moment, this last application would need to be scaled up before it could be of any practical use, but if it could, there must surely be a Nobel Prize in the offing.
In addition, bearing in mind that blood is mainly water being pumped through tubes of biological membranes, Pollack suggested that the same charge-separating mechanism that powered his radiant energy battery might also assist in pushing our blood through narrow vessels far removed from the pumping action of the heart. If so, such a discovery will have huge ramifications for our understanding of physiology.
It turns out that Pollack’s semi-crystalline EZs cannot only be separated, they are able to electromagnetically store information in their molecular structure. And, as the preparation of homeopathic remedies also involves water solutions in contact with surfaces, it is quite feasible his new EZ discoveries will have a huge impact on our understanding of water memory and homeopathy.
In fact, Pollack asserts that water has a HUGE capacity to store information. Further, he notes that homeopathic process of succussion (vigorous shaking of water in glass) creates increased avenues for EZ water that then creates increased water storage.
Classic Homeopathic Methods Optimize Storage of Information in Water
The founder of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), was both a physician and the author of a leading textbook for pharmacists of his day. His many experiments attempting to reduce the harmful side effects of medicinal substances, led him to a method of dilution and agitation which homeopaths use till this day.
Intriguingly, what the new science presented at this conference is telling us is that Hahnemann’s method seems to optimize storage of medicinal information within the very structure of water itself! Even after more than 200 years, Hahnemann’s discovery of homeopathy and his contributions to medicine and pharmacology are still being uncovered.
Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier was introduced to homeopathy and homeopathic research by Benveniste. In a remarkable interview published in Science magazine of December 24, 2010,14 Montagnier expressed support for the often maligned and misunderstood medical specialty of homeopathic medicine.

“What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience. He replied adamantly: “No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”
‘Teleportation’ Effects
Montagnier’s study found that under the right conditions electromagnetic signals can be transmitted from test tubes containing a highly diluted DNA sample to a different test tube containing only water, and that when enzymes which copy DNA molecules are then added to this water, they behave as if DNA molecules are present, producing new DNA molecules.15
This “teleportation” effect of the DNA, from one test tube to another was found to occur only when the homeopathic procedure of sequential dilution, with vigorous shaking of the test tube, was utilized. Also, Montagnier cowrote with several highly-respected scientists another article that was published in a leading scientific journal.16 This article posits quantum effects beyond simple chemistry.
Montagnier’s studies found that highly diluted DNA from pathogenic bacterial and viral species is able to emit specific radio waves and that “these radio waves [are] associated with ‘nanostructures’ in the solution that might be able to recreate the pathogen.”
A writer for New Scientist magazine has asserted that, if its conclusions are true, “these would be the most significant experiments performed in the past 90 years, demanding reevaluation of the whole conceptual framework of modern chemistry.”17
While Montagnier’s work shows the influence of electromagnetic fields having a biological effect, other researchers at the conference found that nanodoses of the original homeopathic medicine persists in water solutions. Jayesh Bellare of the prestigious India Institute of Technology described his seminal research that was published in Langmuir, a highly-respected journal published by the American Chemistry Society.18
Bellare and his colleagues found that six different homeopathic medicines, all made from minerals (gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc and platinum), that were diluted 1-to-100, six times, 30 times and 200 times, were each found in nanodoses from one of three different types of spectroscopy.
Bellare and his team explained that homeopathic medicines are usually made in glass bottles, and the vigorous shaking of the water in these bottles releases nanosized fragments of silica from the glass walls, and the substance being made into a medicine is literally pushed into these floating silica “chips.”
Then, when 99 percent of the water is poured out, the silica chips cling to the glass walls. The scientists found each of the six minerals persisting in the water no matter how many times they diluted the medicine. When one considers that many of the most important hormones and cell-signaling agents of the body operate at nanodose levels, the nanodoses found in homeopathic medicines may explain how these medicines work.
Still further, the fact that nanodoses are much more able to cross the blood-brain-barrier as well as most cell membranes provides additional insight into how and why homeopathic nanodoses can elicit significant and powerful immune responses from the body.
Afterword: Stop Press!
The day after Ullman’s interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola, a very important study on homeopathy was published on the website of one of the world’s leading scientific journals, Nature.
Nature.com just published a collection of studies that tested different homeopathic potencies of Rhus toxicodendron (also known as Rhus tox and Toxicodendron pubescens, commonly known as poison ivy), including 2X, 4X, 6X, 8X, 12X, 24X and 30X in the treatment of neuropathy in rats.19
Previous research had found that Rhus toxicodendron has significant anti-inflammatory, anti-arthritic and immunomodulatory activities. This new research evaluated antinociceptive (pain-reducing) efficacy of Rhus tox in the neuropathic pain and delineated its underlying mechanism. More specifically, this research found that this homeopathic medicine showed significant antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties.
This study found that homeopathic doses of Rhus tox 24X and 30X had dramatic effects that equaled the results from a known conventional drug, Gabapentin, and did so in much safer doses. Conventional scientists have consistently asserted that these extremely small doses of homeopathic medicines could not have ANY effects, but this study, like an increasing number of other such studies, has proven conventional scientists are wrong.
The above described study didn’t investigate the influence of water in its study, but it did confirm that homeopathic nanodoses can have powerful biological and clinical effects.
Dedication
This article is dedicated to Dr. Peter Fisher, the now-late physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A graduate of University of Cambridge and a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Faculty of Homeopathy, he was a widely published expert in rheumatology and forms of complementary and alternative medicine.
Fisher chaired the World Health Organization’s working group on homeopathy and was a member of WHO’s Expert Advisory Panel on Traditional and Complementary Medicine. He served as clinical director for 18 years and director of research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (formerly the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital) for 22 years.
He was also president of the Faculty of Homeopathy and editor-in-chief of the journal Homeopathy (the leading research journal in the field). Fisher was awarded the Polish Academy of Medicine’s Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal in 2007. Fisher also served as moderator for the second half of the homeopathic research conference discussed in this article.
Besides all of his academic achievements, Fisher had a wicked, dry, even very dry, British sense of humor. He was known to provide scathing critiques of the many uninformed and ill-informed skeptics of homeopathy whose criticisms of homeopathy simply proved their sheer ignorance of the subject. Sadly, August 15, 2018, Fisher was riding his bicycle in London on “drive your bike to work day,” and was hit by a truck and killed.
Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, is a certified homeopath who has written 10 books on homeopathy and four chapters in medical textbooks, and who has published 40 books on homeopathy by his colleagues (co-published with North Atlantic Books). He directs Homeopathic Educational Services, a leading homeopathic resource center to help people access homeopathic books, medicines, software and e-courses (www.homeopathic.com).
He has also created a special e-course on “Learning to Use a Homeopathic Medicine Kit” (details at https://homeopathicfamilymedicine.com/). He also maintains a homeopathic practice where he “sees” most of his patients via Skype, various video apps, or the simple telephone.
Lionel R Milgrom, Ph.D. FRSC FRSA MARH RHom is a registered homeopath who has been a research chemist for 40 years (cofounder of a university anticancer biotech spin-out company) with many publications and a text book to his credit. He has been a practicing homeopath for 20 years.
His main research interest these days is in the understanding of homeopathy within both scientific and philosophical contexts, and has published extensively in these areas. He has also published the first volume of an e-book trilogy, “Homeopathy and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed.”

It’s no secret that men and women are different. Diane Halpern, Ph.D., past president of the American Psychological Association, wrote an academic text, “Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities.” Bruce Goldman, science writer at Stanford,1 reported in the preface to the first edition that:2

“At the time, it seemed clear to me that any between-sex differences in thinking abilities were due to socialization practices, artifacts and mistakes in the research, and bias and prejudice. … After reviewing a pile of journal articles that stood several feet high and numerous books and book chapters that dwarfed the stack of journal articles … I changed my mind.”

Researchers have discovered structural differences in the brains of men and women including a larger total brain volume in men and higher tissue density in the left amygdala, hippocampus and insular cortex. Amber Ruigrok, Ph.D., carried out the study revealing the asymmetric effect sex has on a developing brain. She said:3

“For the first time we can look across the vast literature and confirm that brain size and structure are different in males and females. We should no longer ignore sex in neuroscience research, especially when investigating psychiatric conditions that are more prevalent in either males or females.”

As scientists gather more information about the specific differences between men and women, it’s generated numerous questions. Roger Fillingim, Ph.D.,4 from the University of Florida, has spent years researching differences in pain perception and what implications they may have for pain management.5
Women perceive pain more intensely than men

Fillingim found that differences in personality and behavior associated with gender are quite real and have profound effects on many aspects of life and health. Gender differences affect the ways in which men and women use logic and solve problems. Even while at rest, neurological activities in the brain are different.6
As described in a literature review,7 Fillingim began evaluating an area of research suggesting there are gender-based differences in response to pain. He provided a brief overview of the sex-related differences in biological and sociological processes and the role that sex hormones play in influencing pain sensitivity.
He suggested future directions for research with an emphasis on discovering the mechanisms of difference to assist efforts in prescribing specific treatments for men and women. He participated in a follow-up study8 with the objective of evaluating differences in peripheral and central sensitization in those with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.
The team concluded there was evidence women have a greater overall sensitivity to pain than men.9 In an interview with NPR, Fillingim explained what has driven his desire to discover gender-based differences in pain perception:10

“The burden of pain is substantially greater for women than men, and that led pain researchers like myself to wonder if the pain perception system is different in women than in men.”

Fillingim is currently the director of the University of Florida’s Pain Research and Intervention Center of Excellence.11 He and his team recruit healthy volunteers for experimental pain sessions during which participants are exposed to painful stimuli in the form of electrical stimulation, pressure, heat or cold.12 The volunteers rate their pain on a standard scale of zero to 10.
Fillingim reported his findings are consistent with those of other researchers.13 While the pain stimuli are the same, women on average report greater pain. Fillingim believes that finding the reason behind the difference may help provide more effective pain treatment beyond a standard prescription for highly addictive opioid drugs.
Pain perception affected by several factors

Fillingim is investigating several factors that influence the perception of pain, including sex hormones. In discussing pain perception of those living with arthritis, scholars from the Arthritis Foundation point out factors influencing perception include age, emotions and support systems.14
In the elderly, regions of the brain that process pain may undergo a structural change predisposing the individual to a reduction in pain perception.15 However, recent studies have shown that sensation may increase or decrease as you age. Psychological state is also a player in pain treatment.
Researchers have found that those who have a negative attitude or emotional state may have an increased intensity of their pain and a poor response to pain control.16 By contrast, those with a positive attitude often experience better clinical treatment of their pain with medication.
In an analysis of chronic pain in individuals, researchers have found that perception is more than just sensation as it often encompasses emotional aspects, the attention of the individual and learned responses over time.17 Anxiety and depression also contribute.
Scientists have found that by providing psychological support they may reduce the use of analgesics and increase an individual’s sense of control. Perceptions in those experiencing chronic pain will also be influenced by their expectation of what they will feel and how they will respond to treatment.18
Based on results of a study Fillingim conducted on those with active knee osteoarthritis, the team suggested that women have an enhanced central sensitivity to pain.19 Central sensitization occurs in the nervous system when an individual experiences chronic pain.20
The condition has two characteristics involving heightened sensitivity, one of which occurs when the person experiences pain under conditions normally not painful. The other occurs when something that is typically painful is perceived as being more painful. In essence, the central nervous system becomes regulated to a persistent state which lowers an individual’s threshold for what causes pain.
What Fillingim found is that the perception of an identical acute pain stimulus is greater in women than in men, and that women also experience an enhanced central sensitization to chronic pain.
Women more likely to get combination opioid prescription

According to Harvard Health Publishing21 there are connections among anxiety, depression and pain. The overlap is particularly significant in those suffering from chronic pain. Researchers are finding that the overlap has something to do with biological mechanisms in addition to psychological factors.
When anxiety and pain overlap, treatment may be challenging. Researchers have found that significant mood disorders apparent before surgical intervention can contribute to the development of chronic pain after surgery.22 One study23 found a link between anxiety and the exacerbation of pain related to the hippocampus, which plays a role in anxiety.24
Anxiety disorders are some of the most prevalent mental health conditions. According to population-based surveys, nearly 33.7% may suffer from anxiety during their lifetime.25 It is important to note researchers have consistently found women suffer from anxiety disorders twice as much as men and that this may be related to life experiences or genetic and neurobiological factors.26
Psychologist Carolyn Mazure, Ph.D., of the Yale School of Medicine27 notes that women are also more likely to have a chronic disability associated with pain.28 The combination of a higher incidence of chronic pain conditions, anxiety disorders and deeper perceptions of pain may greatly contribute to the trend toward the combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines in women.29
Although clinical guidelines caution physicians against this combination, from 2002 to 2014 the proportion of those who received opioids and benzodiazepines together rose from 6.8% to 9.6%.30
Half of those received both drugs from the same physician on the same day; the writing of combined prescriptions was more common in those who were getting opioids for more than 90 days, in both women and the elderly.31
Does substance abuse progress more quickly?

Drug overdose deaths related to prescription and synthetic opioid use in women jumped significantly from 1999 to 2017.32 The percent increase of total drug overdoses in women ages 30 to 64 years jumped by 260% during that same time.33 Although the number of female deaths was lower than that of males, the number appeared to rise at the same rate until 2017.34
In an analysis35 of a large insurance claims database whose results were published in 2009, researchers studied chronic opioid users and their use of medical services. They found 4.56% of all insurance claims were made by chronic opioid users, who made up just 0.65% of the total population.
Of the group, women represented more than 63% and filed a greater number of insurance claims representing medical services.36 The authors suggest that opioids were often prescribed for arthritis and headaches or at times when patients presented with concurrent physical ailments for which opioids were contraindicated, such as COPD.
Another study37 offers results which are believed to point to gender-based vulnerabilities involving the consequences of addiction in women. The objective was to evaluate the effect of gender on progression from regularly using addictive substances to entering treatment.
The researchers found that women went through fewer years of regular use before choosing to enter treatment; however, they didn’t find a difference in the severity of drug dependence specific to gender.38 They concluded this may support the idea that women go through an accelerated progression of addiction to opioids, cannabis and alcohol.
The study did not address the degree of failure in the participants’ life before seeking treatment. In other words, women may have exhibited a greater understanding of their need for treatment rather than a faster progression through addiction.
Seek natural options before opioids

If you are struggling with an opioid addiction, please seek professional help immediately. A major step toward healing and health is to make changes to your diet and lifestyle, which may produce significant results. Four primary areas to address include:

Eliminating or radically reducing your consumption of grains and sugars
Increasing your intake of animal-based omega-3 fats
Optimizing your production of vitamin D
Radically reducing your intake of processed foods

Each of these helps reduce inflammation in your body. If you are fighting chronic pain, it is important to address the underlying issue in order to reduce your discomfort and improve your health. You may find it helpful to start physical therapy or visit a chiropractor to address challenges with posture, lower back pain, chronic headaches or hip and knee pain among others.
In addition to these strategies consider the use of Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), which involve psychological acupressure to optimize your emotional and physical health and healing. EFT is easy to learn and may help remove negative emotions, reduce food cravings (including sugar) and reduce pain.
If you are struggling with opioid addiction, EFT may also assist you through a structured recovery program. If you’re currently suffering from chronic pain, you may find comfort knowing there are many natural, safe and effective alternatives you can consider rather than turning to over-the-counter and prescription painkillers. For a list of those, see my past article, “Understanding the Opioid Epidemic.”

More than three decades of scientific research suggests that repeatedly telling children that they are especially smart or talented leaves them vulnerable to failure, and fearful of challenges.Children raised this way develop an implicit belief that intelligence is innate and fixed, making striving to learn seem less important than seeming smart; challenges, mistakes, and effort become threats to their ego rather than opportunities to improve.However, teaching children to have a “growth mind-set,” which encourages effort rather than on intelligence or talent, helps make them into high achievers in school and in life. This results in “mastery-oriented” children who tend to think that intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work.This can be done by telling stories about achievements that result from hard work. Talking about math geniuses who were born that way puts students in a fixed mind-set, but descriptions of great mathematicians who developed amazing skills over time creates a growth mind-set.