The Estrogen Cancer Myth

Bookmark and Share

Does estrogen really cause cancer?  There have been studies removed from the National Library of Medicine that give answers to estrogen-cancer questions.  This was done to keep people, doctors and patients, in the dark about hormones, estrogen and how to properly treat patients’ hormone deficiencies.  I was able to hire someone to locate a document in Europe by Robert Wilson, MD about estrogen and cancer.  Dr. Wilson is my hero and I aim to pick up where he left off. Below is the article kink and text of his article telling the truth about estrogen.

The Estrogen Cancer Myth


Clinical Medicine, August 1964, Brooklyn, NY

Although estrogens have been accused of causing cancer in women, the facts indicate that its administration actually offers hope of diminishing the incidence of malignant lesions including breast and genital cancer whatever the causative factors. Thus, estrogens should be administered postmenopausally.

Again and again, held in the same cell, the accused has faced the same charge. And with each imprisonment the Grand Jury, for lack of any but the most circumstantial evidence, has refused to indict. Released periodically, the accused has wandered friendless and alone, facing, until the next arrest, the suspicions, dread and hatred of most of the world. This has been going on for more than 20 years.

It is the story of estrogen.

In discussions with doctors and patients regarding the long term administration of estrogen, one question almost invariably arises: “But what about cancer?”

This is especially true in lay circles whenever the word hormone enters into the discussion. The literature regarding this aspect of estrogen is profuse and controversial, the confusion probably greatest in the etiology and treatment of breast cancer. It is not unusual to listen to an authority present the menace of estrogen and then terminate the meeting by showing slides of angry cancerous lesions melting away following estrogen administration. How did this paradoxical situation come about?

The Evidence

More than 20 years ago in the early days of cancer and hormone research (and they were largely contemporaneous) certain chemical substances administered to mice resulted in cancerous growths. These chemicals were therefore labeled “carcinogenic” and included many widely different substances among which were a few that also happened to be estrogenic. On this evidence is based, almost exclusively, the accusation that estrogens produce cancer. Mice are not humans, yet these results were heard around the world. The publicity has continued and has been devastating. A typical example is the blatant newspaper publicity given to more recent experiments with mice.

Special Strain

What is not generally known is that the mice used in the early experiments were a special strain which had been inbred for hundreds of generations. These mice had such a high incidence of spontaneous cancer that if they were allowed to live their natural lifetime under the best of conditions (no chemicals at all administered) more than 50% would develop mammary cancer. Certainly nothing is proven if 80 or 90% of such abnormal, unnaturally sensitive mice develop cancers after the administration of an estrogenic chemical. Injections of aspirin would undoubtedly be carcinogenic. What about dosage? These mice were given as much as 1 Gm. of the estrogenic chemical weekly for six months. However, a mouse weighs about 50 Gm. and lives only two years. Actually the susceptible mouse was given half its body weight for one fourth of its life span; it would be impossible to administer a proportionate amount to a woman even over a 20-year span. Is the attempt to translate these experiments into the human area anything but ludicrous?

Monkey Experiments

Attempts to obtain similar results with other animals have failed utterly. That estrogens are not carcinogenic in other animals was shown by investigators who assaulted monkeys for as long as 10 years with estrogens augmented by local trauma and other carcinogens. No malignant growths were produced. Still others administered massive doses of estrogens to Rhesus monkeys for as long as seven years; some received as much as one million rat units per year. There was not one instance of cancerous change in any organ. These experiments with monkeys are important because of the close relationship of monkey to man and are particularly valid in evaluating estrogens in humans. It has been reported that enormous doses of natural estrogens failed to produce new growths in rats and in a large number of human subjects. In spite of the inability of these and many other investigators to induce cancer by means of estrogen in any laboratory animal except the susceptible mouse, the stigma persists. This is indeed surprising, as there is no convincing proof that estrogen has ever induced cancer in the human being.

Normal Estrogen Levels

It is reassuring to realize that a woman has possessed and benefited from estrogen all her life, even long before birth. Her destiny is closely intertwined with it. There is further reassurance in the fact that she has the greatest amount of estrogenic hormone in her body between the years of 18 and 25 and yet during those years breast and genital cancer is at its lowest incidence. Cancer occurs most commonly when the female hormone level drops. Actually the incidence of cancer of all sites in women shows a constant increase with age, at the same time that the production of estrogen is steadily declining (high estrogen in youth-low incidence of cancer; low estrogen in age–high–incidence of cancer). The “dyed-in-the-wool” believer in the “estrogen menace” cannot explain these irrefutable facts, so he avoids them; he pretends they do not exist.

Estrogen Levels in Pregnancy

During the last few months of pregnancy, the placenta pours estrogen into the mother’s blood stream in astronomical amounts. The total estrogen produced during a normal menstrual cycle is about 5 mg. The amount produced in either of the last two months of pregnancy is almost 3000 mg.-an amount 600 times greater monthly than in her non-pregnant sister. At least 50 % of this tremendous amount passes freely into the fetus. There is increasing evidence that an adequate supply of estrogen is vital to the well being of the fetus. There is further evidence that the fetus, male or female, is itself actively concerned with estrogen synthesis. The full-term placenta contains about 51 mcg. of estrone, 170 mcg. of estradiol, and 315 mcg. of estriol per kilogram wet weight. It has been estimated that if the dose of an estrogen administered to a worn: an were 1.5 mg. weekly by injection (an average dose), it would require at least 125 times this amount weekly to approximate the state of pregnancy. If estrogen were carcinogenic, under these circumstances malignancy should be frequently encountered in pregnancy. Yet this is not so – it is relatively rare, only three per 10,000 pregnancies. Even in the occasional case encountered, the tumor may well have ante-dated the pregnancy.

Incidence of Cancer Unchanged

The incidence and mortality rate of breast cancer is the same today as in 1930 when estrogen was not in use. After Daisy’s discovery of estrogen more and more women have been treated by it so that at the present time in the United States it is safe to assume that more than 7,000,000 women consume estrogen with more or less regularity. The amount of estrogenic substance consumed yearly can thus be measured in tons. In view of the unchanged incidence of breast cancer during these years, how can one logically argue that estrogen causes cancer of the breast?

About 10,000 women die of cancer of the cervix in the United States each year. These deaths are at least 90% preventable. It is purely a question of detecting the cancer when it is localized, principally by cytological screening. The time is past when a patient should have to request that a cancer smear be taken; instead it should become so routine that she would believe she has not had a complete examination if it is omitted. By doing this, cancer of the cervix would, in most instances, be detected in its developing or pre-invasive (and thus curable) stages.

Many theories of the cause of cervical cancer have been explored but its cause is not known. Few physicians would implicate estrogen. The situation is rather to the contrary. It is a reasonable assumption that the maintenance of a healthy vaginal epithelium by local or systemic estrogen usage when needed would be cancer protective. An atrophic cervicitis is constantly trying to heal itself and it is under these circumstances of rapid cell growth that a cancer might develop. With hormonal treatment the atrophic cervicitis could have been prevented or cured and a cancer could conceivably have been prevented.

Endometrial Cancer

About 15,000 endometrial cancers occurred in the United States in 1963. Just as the anxieties of some regarding estrogens are concentrated primarily upon mammary tissue, so others are more concerned with the endometrium. They seem to ignore the fact that 92% of the cases of endometrial cancer occur after the age of 40 years when most estrogen levels are already decreased, are declining steadily, and when anywhere from 25 to 40% of the endometria are atrophic due to estrogen deficiency (maximum age of incidence is 57 years). The attempt to indict estrogen in this instance is indirect. Endometrial cancers are sometimes encountered simultaneously with endometrial hyperplasia. As hyperplasia is estrogen induced, therefore estrogen is the “cancer culprit”-guilt by association. A complicating factor is the extremely close microscopical similarity of endometrial adenocarcinoma and some forms of hyperplasia. It has been pointed out that there is no sharp line of demarcation between proliferative forms of hyperplasia and early adenocarcinoma. The growing use of progestogens and other steroids has further increased the risk of a mistake in diagnosis. One can only speculate upon the number of patients erroneously treated by irradiation, or hysterectomy, or both, and indexed in the hospital record room as endometrial carcinoma. The late Emil Novak who was intensely interested in this problem, concluded that the occurrence of the two entities is coincidental.

Cancer Prevention

As endometrial cancer is not a disease of the young except in the presence of ovarian failure to produce sufficient estrogen and progesterone, it is extremely important that the hypogonadal, premenopausal female be adequately treated. A logical inference is that if the menopause and the climacteric are prevented by the properly timed cyclic administration of estrogen and progesterone, this form of cancer will be simultaneously prevented. There is increasing evidence that exogenous progesterone and its analogues can produce a regressive effect on advanced and even disseminated endometrial cancer.

Quite apart from this direct effect there is another phenomenon which makes the continued growth of an endometrial cancer almost an impossibility, i.e. menstruation or withdrawal bleeding. Any in situ nest of atypical cells is inevitably uprooted and washed away in the deluge of debris, blood and fluids. This physical, cancer-controlling aspect of rhythmic uterine bleeding, whether natural or induced, has been almost completely overlooked by the profession. Induced postmenopausal bleeding need not necessarily be monthly; probably five or six times yearly is sufficient. Long needed has been an inexpensive practical method for the determination of a woman’s estrogen status. Recently a proven, simple technique was described in which, using a minor modification of the Papanicolaou smear; the percentages of superficial, intermediate and parabasal cells of the vaginal mucosa can be determined. These percentages in turn indicate the individual’s estrogen status.


Recently it was found in a large series of cases that the incidence of malignant lesions was three times greater in myxedematous patients than in those with highly active thyroid glands. Thus it appears that keeping a woman generally endocrinologically rich throughout her life, with the maintenance of adequate levels of estrogen and progesterone, offers hope of diminishing the incidence of malignant lesions including breast and genital cancer, whatever the causative factors (metabolic, receptive constitutions, heredity, viral, etc.) Such a concept inherently includes the elimination of the climacteric and the demolition of the “estrogen-cancer myth.”

This article has a PMID number of 15446202 for the National Library Medicine but the article has been removed so no one can get access to pro-estrogen studies.

The estrogen cancer debate has been a part of our history for years and it’s about time we put it to rest and give women their lives back.  You can read more about Dr. Wilson and his practice in his book Feminine Forever.



Bookmark and Share

Doesn’t Estrogen Cause Breast Cancer?

Bookmark and Share

Does Estrogen Cause Breast Cancer is the question everyone wants to know but no one has the answer to but a few.

Most doctors and people think that way of estrogen. People will argue with great conviction about estrogen causing cancer and it makes me laugh because of how intense this topic gets but no one can prove anything, and using the Women’s Health Initiative estrogen study as the basis for standard of care for HRT in conventional medicine, and to prove estrogen causes cancer. That just cracks me up. Nothing about that study has anything to do with the hormones we’re talking about.

Have you ever asked yourself why people would say the one substance that prevents, reverses and heals disease causes cancer? Does it make sense to you the hormone that tells our brain we are alive and healthy would cause cancer? If estrogen really caused cancer, wouldn’t every twenty-something year old female be riddled with cancerous tumors? If estrogen really caused cancer, wouldn’t there be a proportionate increase of breast cancer incidence since the hormone replacement “craze” these last 15 years? Have you ever seen a study showing just how estrogen causes cancer? If estrogen really caused cancer, wouldn’t every pregnant woman whose estrogen rises well above 14,000 have the highest rate of breast cancer incidence?

Not only does estrogen NOT cause cancer, women are much more susceptible to getting cancer when their estrogen falls below 200. If a woman starts taking estrogen with an undetected tumor, depending on the size of that tumor, the estrogen is designed to fight and kill off the cancer cells and gets rid of the disease altogether. If the tumor is beyond this point in size, the estrogen would speed up the tumor growth rate, exposing the tumor’s existence earlier than would have been detected otherwise. Estrogen is designed to act as a shield of armor against disease. The lower estrogen gets, the greater risk of breast cancer. And brain tumors, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, dementia, depression, anxiety, anorexia nervosa, PMS, perimenopause, menopause, and millions of other functions dependent on our estrogen levels. Estrogen affects every function in the female body down to the nucleus of every cell. Nothing in the female body functions appropriately without adequate amounts. It’s like expecting your car to start without enough fuel in it. Does it make sense that something so vital to a woman’s physical and mental being would cause cancer?

So if estrogen doesn’t cause cancer, why would people say that? I like to let people think about that for a moment because they usually figure it out. It doesn’t take long to realize there is an agenda behind getting people to believe estrogen causes breast cancer in women and testosterone causes prostate cancer in men. (Men go through the same thing women do, with similar symptoms, when their testosterone tanks. Female menopause has more awareness because it comes on so abruptly, whereas male menopause is a gradual decline over a longer period of time.) One of our male patients worked for the FDA and it was his job to process new studies for approval. It was his job to approve or deny study applications based on criteria he was given from his superior. One of first and definite without condition criteria were he was to deny any studies applying to show the benefits of high dose estrogen therapies. In the ten+ years working in a hormone clinic, I’ve never seen an increase in cancer; in fact, I saw the complete opposite, which is why I started a hormone therapy research foundation. I aim to show what happens with high dose estrogen therapies to women and the diseases, conditions, and disorders that diminish or completely go away. This information will be based of raw clinical patient chart data with no financial bias, with virtually every form of hormone replacement therapy. From this clinical information, we were able to develop the most advanced hormone restoration protocol on the market, The Panacea Protocol™. There is no better hormone therapy protocol. It’s designed to restore hormones to reproductive levels enabling patients to reach their “Hormone Sweet Spot”, where they can’t imagine feeling any better than they do, and their labs concur. The Hormone Sweet Spot occurs at different estrogen levels for women. Some need more, some less to get to that hormonal nirvana.


Zemanta Related Posts Thumbnail

Bookmark and Share

Bioidentical Hormones: Issues to Consider Article Response

Bookmark and Share

multi_hormone_illustrationBioidentical Hormones: Issues to Consider 

Too bad menopause experts like Kate Bracy, RN, NP who have no experience restoring bioidentical hormones to healthy levels and the impact they have on the body, write misleading articles that confuse women. I don’t personally know the author but I do know if she properly restored bioidentical hormones to healthy reproductive levels in her clinic, she would be writing a different article. I found this article misleading and confusing for women looking for real answers. My experiences with patients have been different than hers because we look at hormone replacement therapy differently so I have different responses to these “issues to consider before taking bioidentical hormones:

Kate: Definition of “bioidentical.” There is no official, medical definition of bioidentical. It usually refers to a chemical or compound that has the same molecular structure as those chemicals and compounds found in nature. This is confusing in the case of hormone therapy because the terms “natural” or “compounded” are used interchangeably with “bioidentical” when referring to hormones. 

Moxie: Does there have to be an official, medical definition for “bioidentical” in order for bioidentical hormones to be effective? Being an expert in menopause, I thought she’d be able to offer a more professional definition for women seeking answers to this term. The terms “bioidentical” and “natural” are interchanged more than any other HRT terms. “Bioidentical” is a scientific term used to describe how plant based hormones like estrogen are synthesized in a lab, changing the molecular structure of that plant to mimic a human molecular structure, so the body thinks it’s its own. This bioidentical synthesizing is the closest thing we have to natural than the actual ovarian secretion itself. The Establishment does not typically support this kind of HRT because you can’t patent a “natural” product and make a billion dollars off of it. Mainstream medicine poo-poos this kind of HRT and purposely confuses women to shy away from it and keep doctors from prescribing it 

Kate: The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study. This study was undertaken to show the health impact of taking menopause hormone therapy. Part way through the study, it was clear that women taking certain combinations of hormone therapy were actually at more, not less, risk for some conditions like heart disease, stroke, blood clots and breast cancer. Thousands of women stopped taking hormone therapy and began to look for safer alternatives.

Moxie: Thousands of women stopped taking bioidentical hormones because they were misled about the safety of them. One of the red flags of knowing you’re going to the wrong bioidentical hormones practitioner is when they start quoting the WHI by which they use as standard of care for hormone replacement therapy. There are multiple flaws (of which I will only address one) of this ridiculous study, and one of them is the fact this study DID NOT use bioidentical hormones. Without getting into the other multiple flaws of the WHI study, does it really make sense to use a study for apples in an argument for oranges? 

Kate: FDA approval. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing safety and effectiveness of drugs. Hormones that are prepared by compounding pharmacies or produced as dietary supplements are not regulated by the FDA, and therefore there is little scientific information on their safety or effectiveness. 

Moxie: Just because hormones are prepared in a compounding pharmacy doesn’t mean there is little scientific information on their safety or effectiveness. This is a misleading statement. Compounding pharmacies like conventional pharmacies, have regulatory agencies, and follow rigid protocols so implying patients will get substandard care and products is outright misleading. There’s nothing wrong with getting medicines made by hand instead of mass produced in a factory by Pfizer. You can’t customize a dose or a route of administration for each patient if all the doctor has to work with is 5mg, 10mg, or 25mg pills. What if your patient needs a 12 mg dose to achieve the results they’re looking for, or can’t take pills? Keep in mind every time a patient gets a compounded prescription, that’s one less pharmaceutical dollar in pharmaceutical pockets so there’s financial incentive to keep patients afraid of utilizing compounding pharmacies. The FDA is more interested in to controlling HRT dosing parameters so doctors are afraid to dose estrogen high enough to get rid of her fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, depression, bipolar, weight gain, and the hundreds of other estrogen deficiency related diseases and symptoms doctors write prescriptions for. There was a time when “FDA Approval” meant something. “FDA Approval” really means, give them just enough to treat the symptoms of estrogen deficiency, but not enough to eliminate estrogen deficiency, so we can make a buck selling drugs for the symptoms.

Kate: The menopause cohort. A lot of women are heading into menopause over the next decade. About 4,000 additional women enter menopause each day. And just as the millions of baby boomer women changed the landscape for sexuality in the 60s, we will probably have enormous impact on how the culture views menopause from here on in. Not only are we accustomed to participating in our health care, we are also a huge market for products that help us as we age –- a fact not lost on drug companies, whether it is the ones cashing in on bioidenticals or pharmaceutical companies that produce medications for age-related conditions.

Moxie: The number of Baby Boomers entering menopause daily is no doubt significant, as is Generation X and the Millennials, the children and grandchildren of Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers are a demographic of educated free thinkers with discretionary income they’d rather spend on themselves than leave to their kids.

They’re looking to feel better and last longer than generations past, and what to see what else is available because what they’ve been doing isn’t working anymore. There is an underlying lie being told most are falling for, which is one of the motivating factors I started a foundation for bioidentical hormones research and education. Doctors are purposely kept in the dark about the truth with hormones, especially estrogen and testosterone, their impact on the human body, and the diseases that go away if properly restored. Practitioners with no bioidentical hormones education or training are referring to the hormone sample package insert pamphlet to learn how to prescribe hormones. I call this “Crapshoot HRT”. The pharmaceutical industry hormone-dosing recommendations are designed to keep patients hormonally deficient so drugs and surgeries can be sold to manage the symptoms of the hormone deficiency.

Kate: Health consciousness. Women have never been more health aware than they are now. Sexual health is something we think about and care about. Hormone issues have been part of our life context in the form of DES exposures from our moms, the availability of the first birth control pills, recognizing the impact of chemicals on the fetus during pregnancy, and even the naming of premenstrual syndrome. We understand that hormones are powerful chemicals and that reproductive decisions have health consequences. 

Moxie: This last paragraph makes little sense to me other than women are more health conscious, think and care about sex, and experience hormone issues impacted by chemicals. She also throws in something about birth control pills and PMS.   Women may be more health aware now but they are definitely unhealthier than ever before, and chemicals and toxins play a role, as does the birth control pill. Toxins play a role in that chemicals inhibit our body from producing healthy levels of main-sex hormones. The birth control pill tells the female brain she has enough estrogen so her body halts production putting her into a state of chemical menopause, and PMS is caused by estrogen deficiency. With regards to sex, women without estrogen do not want sex, they don’t want talk about it, and they certainly won’t be sending out any “signals” of wanting it. 

Are Bioidentical Hormones Better For You?

Kate: It’s hard to say for certain whether bioidentical hormones have a lower risk than other hormone formulations. The lion’s share of research has been done on prescription hormones that are not bioidentical, so we have very little information on whether one or the other is more effective, and almost no information on which versions are higher risk. While it is a logical thought that the bioidentical hormones might be lower risk because your body would not react negatively to them, we don’t yet have evidence to support this. Until there is evidence of safety, it’s best to assume that they carry similar risks to the hormones that have been studied.

Moxie: There is ample data, clinical trails, and studies on bioidentical hormones and to say otherwise is misleading. You just have to know where to find it. There is a lot of “non-answers” in her last paragraph and I don’t know how women are okay with these non-answers from an expert. She should be certain of these facts and dug for the data. It’s not so much about bioidenticals as much as it is about the dosing. Though there haven’t been any studies that prove even synthetic estrogen causes tumors and cancer, there haven’t been any that proves bioidentical hormone restoration causes cancer and tumors. In fact the opposite is true. There are plenty of studies that cover the impact of high dose estrogen and the diseases that go away when hormones are restored. I can say when patient’s get their hormones properly restored, you couldn’t talk them off of them if you tried. Stay with bioidentical hormones and find a doctor who knows the difference between hormone replacement and hormone restoration.

Is There Safe Middle Ground?

Kate: If you are a good candidate for menopause hormone therapy because of your symptoms or risk factors and you are interested in trying bioidentical hormones, talk to your doctor. There are FDA approved bioidentical versions of estrogen and progesterone. These bioidentical formulations have been tested and approved for menopause hormone therapy. Dosage is consistent and quality is dependable in these products, and they can be prescribed through a conventional pharmacy. They are more likely to be covered by insurance than compounded products. 

Moxie: There is no middle ground. The biggest risk is having no hormones at all. This is the advice women should be hearing. With healthy levels of hormones, women don’t get diseased or decay. With no or low levels of hormones, women will have a slew of diseases and disorders that will need to be managed with drugs or surgeries. Women interested in bioidentical hormone replacement therapy will have a hard time finding someone who knows how to fix the estrogen deficiency instead of treating the symptoms of it. What this author fails to say is women are at greater risk without hormones to protect the body against disease and deterioration, including cancer and tumors.



Bookmark and Share

Difference Between Panacea Protocol and Wiley Protocol?

Bookmark and Share

pp logo 150 x 150

What’s the Difference Between the Panacea Protocol and Wiley Protocol?

Colleen, 48:  “I’ve been on the Wiley Protocol now for the last six months but in the past when not on the Wiley Protocol, my doctor had me cycle progesterone days 14 to 28 with oral Promethium 200mg. Then another doctor had me take all hormones daily with 400mg progesterone. Then I would stop and take nothing but OTC creams. Then last August my Ob-Gyn said she was now doing the Wiley Protocol. I’ve been following the Protocol exactly since then, however a Wiley Ob-Gyn listed on the Wiley site said my progesterone on day 12 was 2.18 was residual and I should lower my dose.

Blood Labs Day 12

Estradiol                     185

Progesterone             2.8

Free Testosterone     0.93

Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG)      146

Blood Labs Day 21

Estradiol                     61.4

Progesterone             3.43

Free Testosterone     18.35

Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG)      169


So this Wiley Ob-Gyn says she rarely prescribes the P2 level for progesterone and most always prescribes the next level estradiol dose. I am on first level estrogen and P2. I was surprised that she felt progesterone level high. Wiley herself wrote that progesterone levels should be much higher than my recent levels. Not sure why this doctor advises opposite. And she is listed on their website. I’m finding the Wiley Protocol isn’t working.  Can you please tell me the difference between the Wiley Protocol and the Panacea Protocol?”

Moxie: Holy cow Colleen, you’ve been in hormone hell for a while. This is what frustrates me about doctors not being truthful about their lack of experience and training in hormone replacement therapy. You have been put through the ringer and clearly being treated for hormones by doctors who don’t really know what they’re doing. Let me give you my personal background, personal experience, and clinical observations with several hundred patients utilizing the Wiley Protocol, my Wiley education, and the Panacea Protocol.

Wiley offers a two day seminar on the concept of cycling hormones to simulate the patients’ natural physiology, and dosed high enough to mimic reproductive levels. The information is brilliant however; she offers no clinical training so doctors are left to “figure it out” on their own in the clinic with their patients as guinea pigs, and hope they can get it down. The ones who understand her concepts and set aside the disease management, conventional medicine mindset are the ones who go back to the clinic and try to make it work. One of the problems with this is proper bioidentical hormone restoration is both an art and a science, and not every practitioner will be able to successfully optimize their patients’ hormones just because they understand Wiley’s theory. Most of these practitioners are messing things up with their patients, like you. Wiley offers zero clinical training for practitioners.

You mentioned two of your practitioners were listed on Wiley’s website as a “Wiley Doctor” but keep in mind that just because a doctor shows up for a weekend seminar in a planetarium to listen to a high school educated, hormonally out of balanced woman discuss her HRT theory, doesn’t mean they have what it takes to restore your hormones. I have personally attended her conference on three occasions, and spent a week with her in her Santa Fe home and pharmacy learning all I could so we could. We found it clinically impossible to optimize hormones on Wiley’s concept, and have never been able to find a physician who can. We’ve never been able to use the doses she recommends and get optimal levels for our several hundred patients. We found multiple clinical flaws with her theory, and had to make so many clinical adjustments to her patented protocol that we couldn’t call it the Wiley Protocol any longer.

Colleen: “Wiley Ob-Gyn listed on the Wiley site said my progesterone on day 12 was 2.18 was residual and I should lower my dose.”

Moxie: This is just ridiculous. What did they mean residual? Lower dose? This doesn’t make sense since optimal levels for progesterone are between 10-25, with a peak between 21-25 on day 21, and never dropping below 10 any time of the month. For your provider to tell you to lower your progesterone dose based on this is ridiculous.

Colleen: “So this Wiley Ob-Gyn says she rarely prescribes the P2 level for progesterone and most always prescribes the next level estradiol dose.”

Moxie: Most practitioners don’t prescribe P2 because there’s no need to, and most practitioners prescribe more than the next level of estrogen. The clinicians I’ve worked with prescribe 14-20 lines over E2 baseline to achieve the results of optimal levels, and some we were never able to get their so we changed up the protocol and put them on weekly estrogen injections instead, similar to what Robert A. Wilson, MD did after WWII through the mid sixties. This is where the art of hormone optimization and the Panacea Protocol come in. It’s the job of the clinician and the pharmacist to find a method of hormone administration to get that patient to optimal hormone levels utilizing whatever means works for that particular patient with patches, compounded creams, injections, etc. (Panacea Protocol). The Panacea Protocol utilizes various approaches of administration of bioidentical hormones to obtain reproductive blood serum levels for optimum hormone restoration.

Colleen: “I am on first level estrogen and P2.”

Moxie: We’ve clinically never been able to achieve optimal levels with Wiley’s patented protocol.  I’d like to meet the one who does.

Colleen: “I was surprised that she felt the progesterone level high. Wiley herself wrote that progesterone levels should be much higher than my recent levels.”

Moxie: This should be a red flag to you. It appears you know more about balancing hormones than your Ob-Gyn. If a practitioner is going to prescribe a protocol, they should at least read the book before prescribing it.

Colleen: “Not sure why this doctor advises opposite.”

Moxie: Clearly your doctor wasn’t paying attention in the Wiley seminar that one weekend some time ago.

Colleen: “And she is listed on their website.”

Moxie: Just because a doctor shows up for a weekend seminar in a planetarium to listen to a high school educated, hormonally out of balanced woman discuss her HRT theory, doesn’t mean they have what it takes clinically to restore your hormones to reproductive levels.

Your labs look like a hot mess, especially for being on the Wiley Protocol for six months. For the Panacea Protocol™, we like to see estrogen levels on days 12-13 reach some where in the range of 300-600 and never dropping below 150 anytime in the month. You’re only at a third of what you’ll need of estrogen, and you’ll feel so much better because the increase in estrogen will lower your sex hormone binding globulin, which will allow you access to the hormones you’re supplementing. You can’t be feeling good. With an SHBG that high, you do not have access to estrogen because it’s all bound up in the binding globulin, and not freed up to utilize. The best way to get that down is by increasing your estrogen levels, but your practitioner should know that being listed on the Wiley site.

There is no target for the SHBG be greater than 65 but not as high as yours. SHBG gives us a lot of useful information regarding thyroid status, estrogen status, weight status, nutritional status, in another words, there are numerous confounding factors that could influence it. The problem with a high SHBG is that it could minimize the amount of free estrogen available and therefore negatively impact FSH. As long as FSH is suppressed to less than 5.0 the impact of the SHBG is probably irrelevant. In younger hormonally optimal women the FSH tends to run around 2.5, and their SHBG tends to be around 70. That’s what we consider perfect, however once you start hormone therapy it’s impossible to perfectly replicate what the ovaries are capable of doing naturally.  (I see no readings for FSH and LH and they’re critical in proper hormone restoration. We typically like to see the FSH suppressed below 5.0, and LH suppressed below 2.0.)

There was a time we were concerned about the SHBG, however the more we looked at it, the more we recognized it represented the rate at which estrogen is being absorbed more than anything else, and during pregnancy it goes up so high maybe even into the thousands. So for the most part the absolute level of SHBG in the high zone is kind of an irrelevant question. The bottom line is your estrogen is not high enough. You need to find someone who has hormone restoration dialed in with high dose estrogen therapies. The fact your doctor is stepping outside the box is impressive but still falls short to get you where you need and want to be to feel good and alive again. 

If your doctor wants to be properly trained in proper hormone restoration with the Panacea Protocol, or you need to find one in your area, email me at marie@menopausemoxie.com and I’ll see how we can help.

Thanks for writing in.




Bookmark and Share

What Are Optimal Hormone Levels for Estrogen, Progesterone, and Testosterone?

Bookmark and Share

e, p, t cycle chartWhat Are Optimal Hormone Levels for Estrogen, Progesterone, and Testosterone?


Liz: Do you know what the optimal hormone levels are for Estrogen, Progesterone and Testosterone on day 12 and day 20 of a cycle?

Moxie: As you know, every woman has her own “sweet spot” with regards to optimal hormone levels target ranges for each hormone but I can give you the general target range I use to educate and train physicians.

You’ve shared with me that you’re taking the Wiley Protocol which means you take hormones in a rhythmic fashion to mimic the lunar cycle that results in peaks and valleys comparable to the ocean tide cycles if prescribed correctly. The female body is designed to cycle with the lunar system (28 days), and the male body is designed to cycle with the solar system (31 days). I attached a hormone tide graph to illustrate the peaks.

Optimal hormone levels target ranges for patients on rhythmic dosed hormones (Panacea Protocol or Wiley Protocol)

Day 12:

Estrogen: 300-600

Progesterone: 5-15

Testosterone Total: 30-75*

Day 21:

Estrogen: 200-400

Progesterone: 20-30

Testosterone Total: 20-50*


*Testosterone’s narrow tide peak is between days 13-15 with an optimal hormone levels target range of 45-75.

tiny uterus 7

Liz: On day 20, my Estrogen: 169, Progesterone: 5.9, and Testosterone: 69. 

Moxie: Your estrogen doesn’t look horrible but you can feel so much better if it were higher, and the increase would make your progesterone and testosterone function better, as well as all your other hormones. When estrogen is this low, patients generally don’t feel great, tend to get depressed in the luteal phase, and have wicked periods. Your estrogen is under dosed for the results you are hoping to achieve.

Your progesterone looks nasty for day 20, as it should never fall below 10 anytime during your cycle. Day 21 is progesterone’s natural tide peak and a level of 5.9 on day 20 is concerning. You’re progesterone is under dosed. Progesterone is the calming, soothing, peaceful hormone so when it’s low, women have a hard time sleeping and gaining an overall sense of peaceful well-being.

Estrogen and progesterone are reciprocal hormones and depend on each other’s peak to up regulate receptors so you can utilize the hormones you supplement. When estrogen gets to a high enough level at its peak (day 12), progesterone receptors are up regulated in anticipation for a surge in progesterone. When progesterone peaks at day 21 and is high enough, it will up regulate estrogen receptors. I tell my patients hormone receptors are just as important as the hormones themselves because without them, they cannot utilize the hormones they’re supplementing. Hormone receptors act to receive hormones, utilize hormones, and detoxify hormones out of the body. Giving your body estrogen without estrogen receptors is like not taking estrogen at all, or worse, create problems like estrogen dominance. Estrogen dominance is an estrogen deficiency issue because if progesterone doesn’t get high enough to up regulate estrogen receptors; the estrogen you supplement will not be received, utilized or detoxified out of the body. When this happens, estrogen looks for a place to store itself, and fat is the best storage vessel for estrogen. This is why estrogen dominant patients get fat. 

Your testosterone is on the high side for this time of the month. In our clinic, we don’t supplement testosterone until we know the patient is functioning with optimal hormone levels with regards to estrogen and progesterone. We’ve found over the last 10+ years if we optimize a woman’s two main-sex hormones (estrogen and progesterone), within 3-6 months testosterone optimizes on its own for most (as do all other hormones). This also allows us to see what we’re able to up regulate and what we need to supplement to achieve optimal hormone levels.

My professional clinical opinion is your estrogen and progesterone tides aren’t high enough to up regulate receptors to gain much benefit from any of the hormones you supplement. Our clinic doesn’t utilize the Wiley Protocol anymore because there are too many clinical flaws in it. We had to develop our own protocol to fix these clinical flaws, and after all the adjustments and changes were made, it was no longer considered Wiley Protocol.

I hope this helps answer your question, Liz. Thanks for asking.


Zemanta Related Posts Thumbnail

Bookmark and Share

1 2 3 5