WorldLink Medical

The FDA, ACOG, and NAMS Denounce Bioidentical Hormones

The FDA, ACOG, and NAMS Denounce Bioidentical Hormones: Dr. Neal Rouzier and Dr. Dirk Parvus Disagree

Dr. Neal Rouzier recently shared a an email thread between him and Dr. Dirk Parvus. We found it to be quite moving and thought it would be useful to post.

Hi Neal,

I am attending a hormone conference in Chicago as part of a series given by the Institute for Functional Medicine (IFM). I am interested in their approach to treating chronic disease. A lecturer from IFM refers to several studies that are using CEE and progestins. Some of the studies concluded that hormone replacement, even testosterone, increase breast cancer risk and should not be used long term. Also, his conclusions on estriol differ from mine and from what you teach. He also points out that the FDA, ACOG, and Endocrine Societies do not recommend bioidentical hormones, which I feel is crazy and disturbing. Unfortunately, he does not refer to, or may not know about, the numerous articles you use to base your recommendations. It saddens me that his conclusions are so diametrically opposite from ours. Depending on the experts they listen to, doctors are giving very different treatment recommendations to their patients.

Yours in health,

Dirk

Hi Dirk,

It is absolutely amazing what is being taught and promoted. If this doctor attended our courses, he would be just as disgusted with us, as we are with him. As you have heard in my lectures, the most upsetting consequence to all of this is that practitioners who abide by these teachings mistreat so many patients. None of them follow any scientific methods. As you can imagine, I am not very popular when I lecture [at similar conferences], because I use the medical literature to debunk all that they teach. Please note that there are hundreds of alternatively trained physicians that will disagree with me. I’m glad you can identify the teachings that don’t hold any credible scientific backing. I frequently get into discussions and debates on a multitude of topics, as our teaching is diametrically opposed to their beliefs. Unfortunately for them, they always lose the argument, because I use the medical literature and science to counter almost everything they propose.

Please don’t feel disturbed that ACOG and NAMS don’t recommend bioidentical hormones. I agree with them 100% (and so do you). You see, they are not recommending bioidentical hormones that are utilized by this IFM physician. This doctor will recommend estriol and progesterone creams that do not raise hormone serum levels or provide endometrial protection. ACOG and NAMS are against this type of prescribing and promotion, and so are we. In contrast, the literature is full of data and studies demonstrating the beneficial effects of pharmacologic bioidentical hormones, which I simply copy.

Many doctors from IFM attend my courses and think I’m crazy, because what they are initially taught is contrary to what I teach. I am pleased that you have the insight many others lack. I am frustrated with the incorrect principles being taught, but that just fuels my passion.

Sincerely,

Neal

Hi Neal,

Thank you so much for taking the time to give me a detailed answer. I have referred many colleagues to your courses and plan to retake level 2 and 3 in the next year. The knowledge you provide has enabled me to talk to anyone (including other doctors) about bioidentical hormone optimization. I am able to practice safe, effective medicine for my patients, and when it exists I have been able to recognize flawed reasoning in hormone lectures I have attended. On behalf of all of us who follow your teaching, thank you for your passion and for all of the work you do to summarize the correct way for us.

Yours in health,

Dirk

Hi Dirk,

I must say that your response is the most moving that I have ever received. I just spent the last two days at my computer researching, writing, re-organizing, and trying to improve the courses. This was my only weekend off in months, and I wasted it doing trivial tasks. However, based on your response, it is the most rewarding activity. It drives my wife crazy, but the knowledge and insight that I gain from the research, as well as the responses I receive from physicians and patients, makes all of the effort worthwhile. Thanks again and I hope to see you in September at Part II (which I have changed about 50%).

Graciously,

Neal

Share this post

Comments (5)

  • Regina Forster Reply

    Dear Neal,
    I completely agree with Dirk. He took the words out of my mouth. I also have attended the IFM hormone module and was appalled! They use homoeopathic bioidentical hormone replacement in order to prevent breast cancer! There were at least 30 slides on this and ONE slide on prevention of CVD!
    I am so glad I took your training first and now know when people’s lectures are based on their own fears and not science.

    Thank you for all the work you do and I, too, will be back for more of your training!
    Warmly,

    Regina

    September 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm
  • Michelle Indianer Reply

    Neal–I was at the same conference. I feel so lucky to have studied with you and had to tune out most of what they were saying about female hormone replacement. The main speaker talked about heart disease risks with one comment “I am not going to talk about heart disease risks.” This was after two hours on breast cancer. She recommended using little drops of estradiol on your wrists to symptom relief, something she had learned from someone else. this is sad because IFM is an excellent organization with outstanding educational programs in other subjects. I just kept telling my friends there to take courses with you if they want good scientific evidence. Like DIrk, I will be back in 2012 to repeat your courses. Respectfully and Affectionately, Michelle

    September 18, 2011 at 7:05 pm
  • Theresa Ramsey Reply

    Dear Neal and Dirk,

    In general, research is skewed by the designer and the observer in many cases. The human experience is so more vast than any one research project can portray. The bottom line with hormone research is that outside of the basics of health – nutrition, exercise and ease management – hormones are studied. The only factors seperating the data are hormone type and delivery method, age and vascular risk.

    Outside of hormone replacement research, research in general has been a weak subject to me personally – too many variables and too many interpretations. When it comes to hormones – in a healthy body or in an unhealthy body – we still see the same results to different degrees. Hands down, there is not a body of science that can compare to this.

    I don’t think it is worth our time or energy to discuss the topic of BHRT when the topic hasn’t been looked at equally from both sides. It’s a waste of time and energy and our health is too precious to sacrifice for this.

    If we focus on educating those who are seeking our knowledge, who are self inspired, we will have our greatest impact. Battles arent’ interesting to me – only truth – as close as we can get to it. We all seek our own truth.

    Neal, I appreciate the gifts you give all physicians seeking to be the best patient advocates we can be for those who seek out our knowledge.

    Blessings to you and Carolyn – you deserve peace.
    In Health, Theresa

    September 18, 2011 at 10:22 pm
  • Ashok Kadambi, MD Reply

    I am perhaps one of the few Classically trained Board Certified Endocrinologists that agree with the Neal Rouzier approach to Hormone Optimization. I have successfully incorporated the principles of bio identical hormone replacement in my practice. Within my sphere of influence I have been educating other Endocrinologists to see things from a different perspective. I used to meet with a lot of resistance a decade ago but of late things are changing. At my last seminar I had 5 endocrinologists attend! They liked the information I presented.
    Thank you Neal for your mentorship and encouragement!

    September 24, 2011 at 6:41 pm
  • Alex Leon, MD Reply

    Dear Neal, and all the other kindred physicians

    Ditto to all the above comments, and the ignorant arrogance that we
    all face with many of our colleagues,especially those supposedly previously
    enlightened by the “alternative” BHRT self-appointed and nepotistic gurus
    those of us seeking rationality have endured.
    Again Bless you a million times for your endeavors, I hope to be at
    Part III next week!
    Thanks again
    Alex

    October 6, 2011 at 1:58 am

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.