Page Title

Text Box: Let’s start by talking
about Premarin™ and its influence on the occurrence of breast cancer. Premarin™, as a treatment for hypogonadism (menopause) should be expected to decrease the occurrence of breast cancer. After all, hypogonadism (ovarian failure) is one of the primary reasons the incidence of breast cancer goes up sharply after age 50. So any treatment that is given specifically for hypogonadism should prevent breast cancer, right? So what happened with Premarin™? Instead of decreasing the risk of breast cancer, it slightly increases it over and above the increase that hypogonadism already causes. Clearly, Premarin™ is not an effective treatment for hypogonadism. If Premarin™ is not an effective treatment for hypogonadism why is still used?
As you can see in Figure 1•, women with functional ovaries (under the age of 50) have a very low risk of developing breast cancer. Once women are deprived of adult levels of their sex hormones the rate of breast cancer increases dramatically. Taking Premarin™ slightly increases the occurrence even further. Replacement therapy should be just that, and better health should be expected. If it isn’t, it isn’t therapy. So how can Premarin™ be called hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or hormone therapy (HT) or estrogen therapy (ET) or menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) or any other kind of therapy? Calling a product therapy implies a person is better off taking it than not. Since Premarin™ increases the occurrence of breast cancer above and beyond the illness it is treating then it cannot be called therapy. Premarin™ is called HRT, HT, ET, and MHT because the

Text Box: FDA allows it and for no other reason.

We expect that when
we replace something our body no longer makes we should be healthier for it. For instance, diabetics are much better off with insulin replacement (insulin is a hormone) and a person with little or no thyroid function is much healthier with thyroid replacement. If a regimen of insulin proved to be unhealthy it would be discarded and another regimen would be found. We can’t say the same for Premarin™. For some reason the National Institutes of Health just won’t let go of it.
Premarin™ is supposed
to be HRT for ovarian failure, yet it fails to replace even the most basic functions of the ovaries, protecting our breasts from cancer and restoring lost sexual function. Since Premarin™ was introduced in 1942 it has never been associated with improved sexual response, and many, many clinical trials have documented its negative effect on breast health. Why wasn’t it discarded 65 years ago when it was first

Text Box: discovered that it failed to restore sexual function? If a regimen is used specifically for the treatment of hypogonadism in either gender and it doesn’t restore sexual response it shouldn’t be called HRT. Why then is Premarin™ still commonly referred to as HRT when clearly it is not?
The ovaries make many hormones. Three important hormones are estradiol, testosterone and progesterone. The ovaries make about 10 times more testosterone than estradiol and about 100 times more progesterone than estradiol. This means that of these three hormones, estradiol (estrogen) is made in the smallest amount. Further, it means that by taking Premarin™ you are only replacing estrogen, the ovarian hormone made in the smallest amount. Additionally, the amount of estrogen in Premarin™ is many times higher than a normal menstrual cycle would produce leaving a woman with a vastly different hormone ratio than she would have with functional ovaries. Taking Premarin™ creates an unhealthy hormone ratio which has been documented time and again.
As a consumer of
healthcare you should expect and demand that when you are given HRT that it is HRT. Premarin™ is unhealthy and cannot be called HRT, HT, ET or even MHT. Therapy means that you are receiving a therapeutic level to improve your health. When you take a hormonal therapy for ovarian failure you should expect to at least protect your breasts from cancer and restore your sexual response. If it doesn’t do that, then it isn’t an effective treatment for ovarian failure.