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.
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,
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.
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,
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%).