Previously, we discussed how patients are taking more medications and experiencing an endless conundrum of health issues. The systemic failure to address the root causes of disease is a huge part of the problem. Along with the proven benefits of a healthy diet, exercise, and stress management, we can greatly improve health outcomes by utilizing another evidence-based strategy: bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, or BHRT.
Recently the medical community has undergone criticism for journalistic articles and medical studies that promote one drug or treatment over another. There are often political or economic gains behind the purpose or results of the studies, which leads to inappropriate and biased conclusions or recommendations in these articles. This has negatively impacted the credibility of some authors and journals. Some medical journals provide a study rating score so that the reader may be able to discern any bias of a study’s treatment or product. In addition, medical journals and textbooks now use the term “evidence-based medicine” (EBM) in order to assert credibility for a medical treatment based on peer-reviewed studies or meta-analysis. The purpose of this introduction is to prevent the reader from being led astray by the political and economic bias from paid authors of medical journal papers with misleading agendas.
If you’ve taken any of Worldlink Medical’s CME courses with Dr. Neal Rouzier, you’ve learned about the hornet’s nest of controversy over prescribing hormones to women in menopause that’s been stirred up over the past two decades. You may be familiar with the landmark 2002 study, The Women’s Health Initiative but you may be a little confused on the results and actual implications of the study results vs what the media reports.
Have you experienced the frustration of a patient who never seems to get better?
You’ve diagnosed them with insulin resistance or even full-blown Type II Diabetes. You’ve counseled them on changing her diet. You’ve prescribed metformin to reduce glucose production in the liver. But on the next visit, their fasting blood glucose hasn’t changed or is even a bit higher. Their hemoglobin A1C isn’t budging. They lost a couple of pounds early on, but gained it back after a few weeks.
You’ve asked her how they are doing with changing the way they eat and they say, “I’m trying.”
Worst of all, your patient is clearly feeling discouraged. They are ready to give up. “What’s the use?”
If you’ve ever experienced this scenario, you’re not alone. This frustration comes up all the time in our discussions with providers at our BHRT Workshop Series.
Every occupation has its occupational hazards.
Nurses get stuck with needles. Police officers and military personnel get shot with real bullets in the line of duty. Firefighters get burned and suffer from smoke inhalation.
In 1860, Orange, New Jersey physician J. Addison Freeman published an article in The Transactions of the Medical Society of New Jersey entitled “Mercurial Disease Among Hatters.” (1) Dr. Freeman gave a clinical account of symptoms common among people who worked in the hat-making industry. This occupational hazard earned affected hat makers the term “Mad Hatter” for the psychological and neurological symptoms of erethism or mercury poisoning. (18)
What if we discovered that members of a specific occupation group had high rates of depression, physical and emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of a sense of personal accomplishment?
Since the 2002 report known as The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Trial, Prempro sales have fallen to $161 million annually and more than 10,000 lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer by women, who declared the company’s HRT drug lead to their development of breast cancer and other health ailments. Pfizer Inc. recently set aside $772 million to settle these cases.